Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2016

Palliative Care

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to table a petition signed by many residents of Winnipeg North, addressing the Prime Minister and all members, indicating that hospice palliative care is an approach that includes the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problems associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification, assessment, and treatment of pain and other problems, physically, psychologically, and spiritually. The petitioners are asking that palliative care be taken into consideration with regard to the Canada Health Act.

Child Care

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the electronic petition I am presenting today has to do with the changes to the Treasury Board policy that put Garderie Tunney's Daycare, here in Ottawa, in danger of closing down because of rent increases.

In the end, that day care managed to reach a deal with the Treasury Board, but other day care centres, like the one mentioned by my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie, remain in jeopardy.

This electronic petition is very important because it calls on the Treasury Board and the government to make the work-life balance of federal employees a priority, specifically by keeping quality child care centres in federal workplaces.

I believe it is important to table this petition if we want to ensure that our federal public servants enjoy reasonable, accessible work-life balance.

Palliative Care

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise in the House to present a petition signed by dozens of my constituents calling on the government to establish hospice palliative care as a defined service under the Canada Health Act.

The Minister of Health has conceded that up to 70% of Canadians do not have access to palliative care, and the petitioners are calling on the government to make palliative care accessible and available to all Canadians by taking this step.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Paris Agreement

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by 16 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock.

Today, I am pleased to speak to Motion. No. 8 regarding the Paris agreement.

The Paris targets are the same targets that were put in place by the previous Conservative government, so obviously I am not going to try to change them. However, targets without a concrete plan are just dreams. As a new member with over 32 years of experience in business, I want to see that plan.

The Liberal government promised that a concrete plan would be presented within 90 days of the Paris agreement. That did not happen. Then, the Liberal government said that it was going to consult the provinces to come up with a plan. However, it has already consulted them and it still has no plan.

The Liberals said that they would have a complete plan in less than a year, but there is still no plan and no agreement with the provinces with regard to a plan.

I am pleased to have a chance to correct the misperceptions that exist regarding Conservative views on climate change and the Paris agreement.

I am a scientist. I use fact and evidence-based decision-making as a way of life. As a chemical engineer, the first female engineer to sit in the House, I have the understanding of the science behind what is happening to the planet. Indeed, we are seeing climate change on the planet. The permafrost is melting, extreme weather events are occurring more frequently, and the pH of the ocean is rising as evidence of the change.

It is clear from research that a combination of natural phenomena and human factors are influencing this issue. A volcano in Iceland erupts and in four days generates more of a carbon footprint than we have erased globally with carbon emissions reduction projects in years. Each year forest fires in North America alone increase the emissions, and clearly, we have emissions from transportation, buildings, industry, and mammals

There are ways to absorb these carbon emissions. Scientific data show that 36% of emissions enter the atmosphere, 27% are naturally absorbed by water, and 25% are absorbed by vegetation, with forests absorbing a larger share. Still more carbon is absorbed by carbon sinks through sequestration and convergence.

However, the meeting in Paris was about figuring out how to solve the problem of this global change. The assumption made is that it is all related to the increasing temperature of the planet and that by holding the temperature increase to less than 1.5 degrees we will avert catastrophe. I am not convinced that temperature is the only consideration, but let us deal with that one today.

The linkage is then made that to reduce the temperature increase of the planet, we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we are focused now specifically on carbon emissions. Certainly greenhouse gases are a factor and CO2 a significant portion of these gases. However, when it comes to solving the global problem of carbon emissions, let us be clear on the facts. Canada makes up less than 2% of the carbon footprint of the planet. It is a scientific fact that we could eliminate our entire carbon footprint in Canada and this would have no significant impact on the temperature increase we are trying to solve.

Let me say that again for those who did not get that. We could totally eliminate our carbon footprint in Canada, spending billions of dollars to do it, and it would not fix global warming. The approach of the Liberal government is wrong, especially this newly announced federal carbon tax. This would just kill Canadian jobs and move the carbon footprint elsewhere on the planet.

The scientific fact is that of the 36 megatonnes per year of carbon emissions on the planet, China is responsible for nearly one-third. Between China, India, the U.S., and Europe, they make up 60% of the carbon footprint. Unless their emissions are addressed, the permafrost will continue to melt, the oceans will continue to get more acidic, and weather events will increasingly occur.

While I am supportive of Canada doing its part to lead in helping the planet, it is critical to see that we must move in concert with these other substantive contributors to the problem. Otherwise, we will bankrupt our nation, spend millions to eliminate our footprint, as well as the jobs associated with them, and we will achieve nothing.

Canada has superb low carbon energy technologies and tools that could be used to help other countries. We should maximize the potential of Canada's expertise to help countries with higher levels of carbon emissions.

For example, China is still building coal-fired power plants. Canada could help improve the situation by using alternatives, such as liquefied natural gas, nuclear energy, and renewable energy. Promoting carbon sequestration and biotechnology will create high-paying jobs in Canada and help the planet.

However, what we should not be doing are some of the following.

The U.S. is already receiving power from Canada made with renewable energy in Ontario, which we have a surplus in. It costs us 40 cents per kilowatt hour to produce it through the Ontario Liberal green energy program, which it has currently suspended, recognizing it was economically detrimental to the province. It costs us 40 cents per kilowatt hour to produce it, but we are giving it to the U.S. for four cents per kilowatt hour. Quebec is also giving them surplus hydro. We are certainly helping the U.S. reduce its carbon footprint this way, but it is economically punishing to Canada.

Similarly, the cap-and-trade system introduced in Ontario is resulting in us paying California $300 million per year. Is this helping reduce the footprint? No, it is just transferring money to the U.S.

Within my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, this cap-and-trade tax has already caused one major industry to cancel its $105-million expansion. All those well-paying jobs are now going to the United States, which does not have a job-killing carbon tax.

We have another $2-billion polyethylene project under consideration that we believe will go to the U.S. gulf coast, which does not have a job-killing tax or the threat from the Minister of Environment, which is now a reality, of a second forced level of tax. This means another 1,500 construction jobs and hundreds of well-paying, long-term Canadian jobs will go to the U.S., along with the carbon footprint.

Therefore, the planet is not better off and Canada is less well off. This is what will happen if we do not move in concert with our competitors on carbon taxes.

The U.S. makes up 40% of our GDP in trade. Two levels of additional tax in Canada that do not exist in the United States will cause much of our business to move to the United States, especially with the increase in protectionism we expect to see based on what both U.S. candidates for president have said.

The implementation of a greenhouse gas emissions criteria for projects, which has defined no criteria for acceptability, will cause further uncertainty for those thinking of doing business here and will cause additional cost and delay, which will certainly drive business to more friendly environments such as the U.S.

Therefore, what we need to do to not just lead the world in achieving our targets but to actually work collaboratively with the world to address climate change is to take the efforts that are already happening in Canada and enhance them, where it does not cost us jobs and can further reduce the world's footprint and develop our leading-edge technology, and to leverage that to the substantive contributors of the global problem. We need to move at a pace on reduction that matches those regions that need to do the most.

If we do not adopt this approach, we will feel warm and fuzzy about the climate change initiatives we are embracing, but we will do nothing to prevent the permafrost from melting, extreme weather from happening, and the ocean's destruction.

In Paris, we created an opportunity for the world to come together and do something, but if only we do something, we are doomed to failure and will bankrupt the country. Let us be fact and evidenced based, let us be smart, and let us take an approach that leverages our technology to create Canadian jobs and help the planet.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for her interesting discourse. I come from a family of engineers, including two of my sisters-in-law. I am very happy to hear the scientific discussion.

My only question for the member is an ethical one. How can we expect to collaborate with other countries in reducing the carbon footprint of everyone around the world if we are not taking measures ourselves, if we are not leading ourselves in terms of reducing our own carbon footprint through a carbon tax, which most experts and economists feel is the way to go?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we are doing things. We have eliminated coal production. We are focusing on renewable energy. We are doing carbon sequestration. There are a number of areas of technology where we are actually leading, and we need to leverage that to places like China, which are still building coal plants and make up one-third of the world's footprint.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the presentation and the member's scientific knowledge of it.

Could the member go back one more time and explain the relationship between the temperature rising and what we need to do with the carbon footprint? It was an excellent point and I think it needs to be restated.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the discussion today was premised on what was agreed to in Paris, which is that reducing the temperature of the world will fix the problem. As I said, I do not think that is the only part of the story, and certainly CO₂ is only one emission to talk about.

I believe there is a lot to do, and I think that Canada can lead in leveraging technology. Certainly, we could eliminate our whole footprint and the world is not going to get any cooler.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions, the member has tried to give the impression that we do not have to worry here in Canada because we are just not big enough, that we are not polluting enough. On the other hand, she talks about leadership. I am wondering if the member could reconcile those points.

Would the member not at the very least acknowledge that in order to be able to provide leadership on the issue, we have to get the job done in our own backyard? We listen to what young Canadians, in particular, are saying. One of the reasons the Conservatives lost touch when they were in government was that they were not listening to what Canadians really wanted.

Would the member not agree that young people in particular have built up an expectation where they want Canada to demonstrate leadership, and that in order to demonstrate leadership we have to play our own role and make our system that much better?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that Canada is already leading in technology, in bio and clean tech, and in a number of areas, carbon sequestration being one of them.

The important thing is not to be warm and fuzzy, only, and forget the facts. The fact of the matter is that scientists will tell us that in Canada of all the emissions that go into the air, 36% are absorbed by the air, 27% by land, 27% by water, and an additional amount for the forest.

With the low population density in Canada, there is actually a very valid scientific argument that we are carbon neutral. We have the technology. We are leading. We just need to attack the ones in the world who cause 60% of the problem and are still building coal plants.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am a little stunned at that response right there.

I thought that in Paris we finally came forward and said that we would work constructively with other nations instead of attacking them because they are taking action, such as China and the United States, and investing in the cleaner technologies.

One thing that we need to do is to stop talking about developing renewable and cleaner technologies, and actually give the support to deploy them. One thing that I think the member would agree with me on, and I will be interested in her response, is that everybody knows the sooner action is taken to address climate change, the less it is going to cost. We have lost three or four decades, so it is going to be increasingly expensive now.

Surely the member thinks that now is the time, without further delay, to finally take action on reducing greenhouse gases.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member brought up the topic of the cost of renewable energy.

I live in Ontario, and in my riding, we actually have the largest solar farm in the world. We have a number of wind farms. However, we are selling and signing 20-year contracts for 40 cents per kilowatt hour. We have shut down plants in my riding at four cents per kilowatt hour. We have driven the price of electricity up so high that people in Ontario cannot pay their electricity bills.

The Ontario Liberals have finally realized that and said they are not going to sign any more contracts at that economically bad price. I wish the federal government would get some sense on that, too.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the Paris climate change accord, which was signed by Canada in April of this year. This agreement confirms that the climate change targets set by the former Conservative government were the right ones for this country. It reaffirms and demonstrates that we are dedicated to the environment through innovation/regulation, sector by sector, clean energy dialogue with the United States, and looking at renewable fuels. The only difference is that we were innovative in our approach and cognizant of taxpayer dollars. We have heard a lot of rhetoric, which I have heard day after day, that we have done absolutely nothing for climate change. That could not be further from the truth.

We know that the targets that were set by the Conservatives were ambitious: a 30% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 over 2005 levels. Obviously, the Liberal government agrees with this assertion as well, as it has adopted our targets in the Paris agreement. These targets reflect Canada's willingness to do its part in addressing the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions. That is why we, the Conservative opposition, are in support of the first part of today's motion, which states:

That the House support the government’s decision to ratify the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change signed by Canada in New York on April 22, 2016....

However, the second part of this motion is where further work needs to be done. It states:

...and that the House support the March 3, 2016, Vancouver Declaration calling on the federal government, the provinces, and territories to work together to develop a Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.

That was something that was promised by the Liberal government within 90 days. We have not seen that, so we will move on.

There is no doubt that climate change is a priority for Canadians. However, I have always said, and will continue to say, that the actions on climate change will happen on the ground, on the front line. The real change will absolutely be made by our communities in our cities. In fact, the work is already happening now and has been under way for many years. That is where we need to put our focus and our support.

As a former mayor, and like many former mayors who sit in this House, I can say first hand that municipalities know what needs to be done, and the mechanisms are already in place for the most part. There are provincial targets that cities have signed onto and agreed to. There are federal targets that cities have signed onto and have agreed to through organizations like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which is already doing great work with our municipalities to ensure they have the tools to assist in the reduction of greenhouse gases and reduce our impact on climate change. In fact, over 90% of the municipalities surveyed by the FCM have already developed or are developing greenhouse gas reduction plans and climate mitigation plans.

In my own city of Surrey, we have completed a number of projects, and we still have a good number under way. As the former mayor, I can say we built an organics biofuel facility, which diverted 70% of waste from the landfill and used the renewable fuel to power our fleet. This was the first closed-loop system in North America. We have also implemented a geothermal system. We have used hydrogen fuel cells, electric cars, and CNG buses. We have LED lights throughout the city. We have always looked for opportunities to reduce our footprint and reduce greenhouse gases, especially when we implemented our sustainability charter in conjunction with many other cities back in 2007.

Many projects helped reduce emissions and protect the environment, and it was entirely driven by the cities. Our green city initiatives spoke about protection of our ecosystems and the preservation of natural living heritage and green infrastructure, and we secured 5,700 acres of land and planted more than 10,000 trees.

However, there is more to do and more issues to deal with when we talk about changing weather patterns and the rise of water levels by two metres. This is particularly relevant when there is farmland in the flood plains and when cities are building houses on the flood plains. It is my belief that, when we talk about sustainable development, along with infrastructure and transportation, it is the overall system we should be looking at.

Communities and provinces are where greenhouse gas reductions are going to take place. In fact, some would argue that sometimes federal intervention can be potentially harmful to the work that is already being done. For example, a private member's motion that was passed last week by the Liberal government in the House will impose greenhouse gas emission screens on infrastructure projects in our communities, which will then prioritize infrastructure funding toward projects that mitigate climate change.

This is all good and all lofty. However, many communities need new roads, new bridges, and better highways. They need these critical pieces of infrastructure that are, unfortunately, going to emit greenhouse gases as they are built, but that does not mean that communities do not have climate change mitigation plans in place. There needs to be a holistic approach of having the ability to look at the entire picture, not just one piece of infrastructure.

The federal government needs to be supporting the work that has been done and the new initiatives and plans that are already in place and being developed. Some of these plans have been in place for decades. We do not need to duplicate the work or add more carbon taxes, especially when Canadians are already paying provincial carbon taxes.

The Paris agreement commits countries like Canada to do their part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and with this I have absolutely no issue. To have the federal government impose a national carbon tax on all provinces and territories is not working together. The premiers of Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia and the three territorial premiers have all stated their opposition to the imposition of the federal carbon tax in the area of shared jurisdiction. They all dispute the Prime Minister's interpretation of the Vancouver declaration as an excuse for the federal government to impose a carbon tax in their respective provinces and territories.

It is my belief that we need to support communities that already have well-established and effective greenhouse gas reduction plans and climate change mitigation plans in place. We also need to help and support those communities that struggle with these issues to develop more robust plans. That is exactly why my colleague, the member for Abbotsford, introduced the amendment this morning and called on the federal government to work with provinces and territories to develop a reasonable plan to combat climate change that does not encroach on provincial or territorial jurisdiction or increase the overall tax burden on Canadians. Otherwise, we would be duplicating work, potentially encroaching on the rights of provinces; and frankly, we have enough work to do on our own.

Again, the FCM and every provincial organization that deals with cities and municipalities already have that framework in place. In B.C., the UBCM, which just met last week, has also set targets for greenhouse gas and climate change targets for cities. It is important to acknowledge all of the existing work that has been done over the years and look at how we can take the existing system and make it more robust.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that the previous government had a credible climate plan.

I spent the last 20 years as an executive in the clean tech industry. I have to tell members that there is nobody in the clean tech or clean energy sectors who would agree with that characterization.

If she truly believes that, how can she explain the fact that if we take everything done up until the end of 2015, from a regulatory perspective and from a carbon pricing perspective, and we forecast forward as to where we will be in 2030, we find we will be 10% above the 2005 level in 2030, and the Conservative target was 30% below?

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I guess my question would be why they adopted our plan if it is, frankly, not something that the member would appreciate or support.

I am going to say this. We worked on the international climate change adaptation with the World Bank. We did a number of things, actually: established 19 new clean-tech projects under the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate; invested heavily in carbon capture technology; protected a record amount of parkland; made historical investments in wetland and boreal forest restoration; established a clean air regulatory agenda; introduced regulations for cars and heavy-duty trucks; worked with the U.S. on vehicle emissions, sulphur and gasoline; began to work on any number of fronts; provided supports on the development of carbon capture technology; removed tax breaks for oil sands producers.

The biofuel facility and the renewable energy was, frankly, work that I did as the former mayor, with the Conservative government.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the Conservatives had a plan of sorts and made a lot of promises over the 10-year period. One of those promises, as I mentioned earlier in this place today, was that they would issue regulations to govern the greenhouse gases from the fossil fuel industry. Those were first promised, I recall, by Mr. Prentice, who was the environment minister. Those never came forward.

Other measures that their government could have taken would have been to fast-track the phase-out of coal-fired power. They could have mirrored the measures taken by the premier of Alberta because of the clear evidence provided by the Canadian Medical Association of the serious health and environmental impacts of coal-fired power.

I wonder if the member would respond as to why her government did not take serious measures while it was in power, to actually begin reducing greenhouse gases in a more rapid way?

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that there were a number of things done. We introduced new regulations to reduce emissions from the coal-fired electricity generation, working to phase that out, as I have heard.

I think there is a lot that can be done, I think there is a lot that is being done, and I think there is an opportunity, on all sides of the House, to do what we need to do to protect the environment.

The point here is to do it right. The point is not to pass costs onto Canadians and implement tax after tax. There are other ways to do. There are regulatory ways to do it. There are incentivizing ways to do it. There is the technology that can be developed, and we should keep that technology here. I was speaking on the plane to a fellow from Alberta who is going to Brazil to work with biomass. All of that technology leaves the country.

We have to switch it around and ask how we can keep that brain trust here and export our technology to places like China, India, and all of the countries where the carbon emissions are off the chart.

That is where we would have the jobs. We would keep them here in Canada, not export them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun.

I am proud to rise today to speak to the motion in support of the government's ratification of the Paris agreement.

This agreement represents the cumulative efforts of 190 countries, civil society partners, private sector companies, and indigenous peoples. Collectively we came together in common cause with the purpose of protecting our planet, and that is what we are here to discuss today.

The critical need to address this issue of climate change is actually a very big part of the reason I got into politics in the first place. I did this to work to ensure a healthy and prosperous future for my teenage children and for future generations of Canadian children, and to ensure that our country pursues a path that will enable us to take advantage of the enormous economic opportunity that climate change represents, and thereby ensure the future prosperity of this country.

For 10 years the Conservatives sometimes talked about climate change, but failed to act. Last October, Canadians spoke and voted for real change, real action on the climate issue. The vote in the House this week represents a significant step in Canada's active international and domestic engagement regarding this critical issue.

At its core, the Paris agreement is an important tool for enabling the world to effectively address climate change. Article 6 of the agreement will be particularly important in paving the way for future co-operation among countries on the issue of carbon pricing and I am proud that Canada played a key role in negotiating this part of the agreement.

Global co-operation on carbon pricing will help to lower the overall costs of reducing greenhouse gases, and thus, has the potential to encourage countries to increase the level of ambition of their nationally determined greenhouse gas reduction targets over time.

In our domestic context, first ministers agreed in March to pursue the development of a pan-Canadian plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and furthering clean growth. Carbon pricing is one element of such a plan. Carbon pricing is an essential tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost and for stimulating investment in green infrastructure and low-carbon technology. Carbon pricing uses the market to drive clean investment decisions, encourage innovation, and reduce emissions.

Carbon pricing can do all of this for a number of reasons. First, it provides flexibility. Instead of government making the decisions on what actions must be taken, carbon pricing allows businesses and consumers to take advantage of their own least-cost options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and it provides a clear financial incentive for them to continue to reduce their emissions as long as it is cost-effective to do so.

Second, carbon pricing will help Canada to transition to a low-carbon economy. When manufacturers pay a price on carbon, this encourages consumers to shift their purchases toward less carbon intensive goods and for industry to respond to the growing demand for low-carbon products.

Third, carbon pricing will help position Canada to compete in a future low-carbon economy. Carbon pricing provides businesses with an ongoing incentive to innovate, especially if they expect the carbon price to gradually increase over time. Business leaders recognize that low-carbon technologies and processes are often more efficient and that reducing greenhouse gas emissions increasingly makes good business sense. This is important for the ongoing competitiveness of all businesses. It also, however, acts as a critical catalyst for the development and deployment of Canadian-made clean technologies.

I spent the past 20 years of my life working as a senior executive in the environmental technology field. I personally witnessed the implementation of Canada's first carbon pricing mechanism in British Columbia by Premier Gordon Campbell in 2008 and experienced first-hand the positive impact that such mechanisms can have in spurring the development of a robust clean-tech industry. There are clearly reasons as to why Vancouver boasts the largest clean-tech business cluster in Canada. One of these is the fact that a price on carbon exists.

In our government's discussions with Canadian industry and finance leaders over the past few months, a common theme emerged: carbon pricing is one of the most efficient ways to reduce emissions, to stimulate the market to make investments in innovation, and to deploy low-carbon technology. Indeed, in anticipation of an increasingly carbon-constrained marketplace, many leading corporations, including Suncor, Canadian Tire, and General Electric, consider an internal price on carbon in all of their investment decisions. In addition, we have received numerous submissions from businesses in support of carbon pricing through our “Let's Talk Climate Action” portal.

In July, the Minister of Environment met with 23 Canadian industry and business leaders about the path toward significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Following that meeting, this group issued a joint statement with the Government of Canada in support of carbon pricing. Furthermore, all of these business leaders joined the carbon pricing leadership coalition. This World Bank-led initiative is an international voluntary partnership under which 74 countries and over 1,000 companies have expressed their support for carbon pricing.

We also have strong evidence here in Canada that carbon pricing and the pricing of carbon pollution can reduce emissions while maintaining economic growth. Research has shown that British Columbia's carbon tax has led to a notable reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at the same time as B.C. enjoyed Canada's strongest economic growth.

In addition to the experience in British Columbia, there is growing momentum for carbon pricing in Canada. As of January 2017, Canada's four largest provinces, representing more than 80% of Canada's population, will have broad-based carbon pricing. British Columbia's carbon tax covers all fuels combusted in the province and revenue from the carbon tax is used to reduce taxes.

Alberta has had a carbon price applied to large industrial emitters since 2007, and Alberta's government is getting ready to put in place an economy-wide carbon levy starting in January next year.

Quebec has had an economy-wide cap and trade system since 2013. Quebec linked its cap and trade program with California's program in 2014, and the Quebec-California linkage is widely cited as a pioneering example of international co-operation on carbon pricing.

Ontario's cap and trade program will start in January next year and Ontario plans to join the Quebec-California cap and trade program. Mexico has also announced its intention to join the Quebec-California program.

The government has been working with provinces and territories to build on carbon pricing systems that are already in place and to put a price on carbon across Canada. Last March in the Vancouver declaration first ministers agreed that transitioning to a sustainable low-carbon economy is necessary for our collective prosperity, our competitiveness, our health and security, and that taking smart and effective action today on climate change is essential for future generations. First ministers will meet this fall to develop Canada's pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. The framework will include a national approach to carbon pricing in which the pricing of carbon pollution plays a central role in reducing emissions and driving innovation over time.

Carbon pricing is a central tool but it is just one of a suite of tools required in a shift toward sustainable, economic growth. In addition to carbon pricing, our government will also be considering a number of regulatory approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to complement a national approach on carbon pricing.

In addition, we have committed to making significant new investments in green infrastructure and in clean technology. These investments and the clear, focused strategy the government has been developing with respect to clean tech and innovation will be critical, not only as part of a comprehensive plan to address Canada's greenhouse gas emissions but also as a critical enabler for putting the Canadian economy firmly on a successful transition path toward a low-carbon future.

Over the past several months I have been personally actively engaged with various federal departments and with companies across the country in discussing and developing frameworks and potential measures that will ensure that Canada will be well positioned to capitalize on the opportunities that a low-carbon future will provide.

Our government is committed to putting Canada firmly on a path to achieving its greenhouse gas reduction targets and to enabling Canada's transition to a low-carbon economy. With the ratification of the Paris agreement we will take a very important step, one that will signal to the world our commitment to this global effort.

I am proud to support the motion. I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support the government in taking action to secure the futures of Canadian families, and in particular, the futures of Canadian children.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it looks like we will be doing a lot of chatting back and forth today.

I am looking forward to working with the hon. parliamentary secretary on moving forward on concrete measures.

I understand that he has worked in the clean energy sector, and the question I would pose to him is this. Does he share my concern that Canada has fallen back by 41% in our investments in clean infrastructure, when the rest of the world have their economies based on it and booming in this trillion-dollar economy?

Does he think that the $10 per tonne tax will spur investments right away in this sector?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the question is a very good one. The extent to which the previous government abandoned the clean tech base over the past 10 years is reflected in Canada's clean tech share of overall global GDP associated with clean tech, where it actually shrunk by half in terms of what Canada has actually done.

Part of going forward, we need to certainly make investments in infrastructure-related issues with a green lens to ensure that they are furthering the work that we are doing with respect to reducing greenhouse gas emissions while improving the productivity of the economy. However, we also need a very focused strategy with respect to clean tech in general, where Canada is focused on identifying the areas of technology where we have or can develop a sustainable competitive advantage in the world so that we can effectively participate in what will be more than a trillion-dollar global market.