Debates of Oct. 4th, 2016

Paris Agreement

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his advocacy on the north.

The impacts of climate change are real. We see it across the country. P.E.I. is shrinking by an average of 43 centimetres a year. We have seen flooding and forest fires in the west. However, nowhere is the impact of climate change felt more than in the north. It does not have highways like we do. They are ice highways.

I heard a very compelling story yesterday from the president of the ITK organization, Natan Obed. He talked about one of the leading hunters in the north, an Inuit hunter, who fell through the ice and died. He left his family and the community grieving. Why? Because the changes in the climate are so extreme that someone who has lived off of the land and relied on hunting to provide for the community can no longer rely on traditional knowledge to assess when it is safe to go on the ice.

These impacts are real. It is not an inconvenience. It is changing ways of life and we need to take action now. We owe it to future generations.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the minister's speech and I will try this again. As we have seen time and time again with the government, it recycles speeches over and over again. Recycled talking points are really what we have.

The only thing we missed out of this was that when the Prime Minister gave one of very early speeches in which he said that Canada would be known more for its resourcefulness than its resources, that was really foreshadowing. Where are we now? We are falling further and further behind.

Our hon. colleague from Abbotsford asked a very direct question and the minister failed to answer it. What is the message from the minister to the provinces that have spoken out and walked out against the government's heavy-handed approach? What is the message from the minister to those provinces that have said that it heavy-handed, it is a betrayal, and it is utter disrespect?

I want to know from the minister what her message is to those provinces.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my message is that we are going to continue working them. Politics is politics, but we are here to provide solutions and to work with all Canadians so we position ourselves to tackle climate change and grow our economy.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

I am pleased to speak to the Liberal motion, to support the first element, which is ratification of the Paris agreement, and to strongly oppose the second part, which would unilaterally impose a federal carbon tax on all Canadians and against the express wishes of a number of provinces and territories.

I am sure members are not surprised that we are supporting ratification of the Paris agreement. It is effectively the continuation of our Conservative government's 2030 emission reduction plan.

It was, after all, our Conservative government that took Canada out of the aspirational but failed Kyoto agreement, which none of the world's major emitting countries joined, and of those who did, involved barely one-third of global GHGs, and which the Liberals signed without any due diligence or intent to fulfill. Of course history will remind us that the Liberals then did absolutely nothing to implement Kyoto. In fact, emissions under the Liberal government rose by 35%.

Our Conservative government joined the Copenhagen agreement and worked diligently to regulate reductions in GHG emissions across the major emitting sectors. At the same time, we campaigned to create an even better post-Kyoto accord, which would include all of the world's major emitters. If China, the United States, India, Brazil, and the other big emitters follow through on their commitments under the Paris agreement, we will now have the engagement that we in the official opposition and previously in the Conservative government sought.

We committed to Copenhagen, and now Paris, even though Canada generated less than 2% of global CO₂ every year, because we believed, and we still believe, that Canada must play its part with all of the major polluters. As a result, our Conservative government was the first in Canadian history to achieve real, tangible, significant reductions of greenhouse gases, even as we enjoyed economic growth.

Members will recall we started with the transportation sector, the largest emission sector in Canada, and we created, in partnership with the United States, tailpipe regulations that would reduce car and light truck emissions by 50% by 2025 and would consume 50% less fuel. We set regulations for heavy-duty trucks and buses that would see emissions from these vehicles by 2018 reduced by up to 23%, which would mean up to $18,000 a year in savings for a semi truck operator in a 2018 heavy-duty model vehicle. We set marine emission guidelines and began work with the aviation and rail industries. We then moved on to the next largest emission sector.

When the Prime Minister opened this debate, he mentioned the benefits to reduced emissions from coal-fired electricity generating plants. However, I was not surprised that he did not mention that it was our Conservative government that imposed a ban on the construction of new traditional coal-fired units, the first government in the world to implement such a ban.

I was not surprised the Prime Minister did not mention our Conservative government's pilot project investment in a world-leading carbon capture and sequestration project in Estevan, Saskatchewan, which led to that provincial government's trail blazing billion dollar-plus investment in a commercial CCS unit at SaskPower's Boundary Dam. This project will enable Saskatchewan to benefit from an estimated 300-year supply of coal, not to leave it in the ground but to burn it cleanly, by capturing one million tonnes of CO₂ per year and storing it safely in deep underground reservoirs.

The world is watching the Boundary Dam project, but the Liberals are looking the other way. The Liberals are also looking the other way on our other achievements, hoping Canadians do not remember that our Conservative government also protected a record amount of parkland and made historic investments in wetland and boreal forest restoration and protection, adding considerably to Canada's capacity to sequester GHG emissions in the old fashioned way: nature's carbon storage.

After the transportation and coal-fired sectors regulations, we began work on setting emissions limiting regulations for the oil and gas industry and its sub-sectors. We found the industry willing to participate in the search for emissions intensity limits and compliance fees for over-emitters.

Our Conservative government pioneered the concept that compliance fees raised would remain in the province in which they were collected and would follow the tech fund research investment model created in Alberta.

Unfortunately, although other provinces with significant upstream, midstream, and downstream oil and gas operations were seriously engaged in those talks, time and circumstance did not result in completion of that regulations exercise. The circumstance was that in the wake of the recession there was real concern that Canadian producers, transporters and refiners would have been significantly wrong footed in the highly competitive North American market.

In the absence of matching regulatory action by the United States, the quest for oil and gas regulations was shelved temporarily.

In hindsight, if regulations had been imposed on the oil and gas sector three years ago, they almost certainly would have had to been suspended to protect the Canadian sector and our national economy when resource markets collapsed.

In my home province of Ontario, economic storm clouds are building over the provincial Liberal government's misguided embrace of a failed European model of cap and trade, which comes into effect January 1. Carbon markets have not worked anywhere in this world. The decade-old European market, which saw billions of dollars originally invested, saw most of those same billions evaporate when the market crashed as a result of speculation, fraud, and organized crime manipulation.

We saw another carbon market crash this year in California when that state government's latest option of carbon credits raised barely 2%, or $10 million of an intended $500 million target.

Yet now we see in Ontario a lemming-like determination to follow the failed European and California cap-and-trade models. All Ontarians will have to pay for the carbon market through higher consumer prices, except essential major polluters that will get a major windfall of free carbon credits from the Ontario government. This effectively means a big cash transfer from ordinary taxpayers to these major polluters.

Ontario will sooner or later inevitably see this complex voodoo economics-driven carbon market collapse on itself.

A wise man once described cap and trade as the dumbest way to implement carbon pricing. That was before the Liberals' national carbon tax, unrealistically conceived by the same brain trust responsible for the Ontario cap-and-trade cash grabbing boondoggle, estimated to be $1.9 billion to be scooped annually from the pockets of taxpayers and go into Ontario general revenues.

An escalating national carbon tax, unilaterally threatened without serious analysis or consultation with the provinces and territories that have very different but legitimate ways of countering climate change, is a flagrant violation of the spirit of our federation.

Our Conservative Party, as the official opposition, believes that economic growth and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive. We believe in and support open and co-operative federalism, but we oppose the Liberals' high-handed encroachment on areas of shared jurisdiction.

We in the official opposition believe that Canada can and must find the right balance between protection of our environment for future generations and growing our economy to ensure the long-term prosperity of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on a few of the last remarks my colleague made. He said that his party believed that economic growth and protecting the environment was not mutually exclusive.

Coincidentally our plan has received the endorsement from a number of business leaders within the natural resources sector. I would like to provide him with a recent quote from Suncor CEO Steve Williams who said, “We think climate change is happening...We think a broad-based carbon price is the right answer.”

The CEO of Royal Dutch Shell also said, “We firmly believe that carbon pricing will discourage high carbon options and reduce uncertainty that will help stimulate investments in the right low-carbon technologies and the right resources at the right pace.”

Clearly we have business leaders who have come to appreciate that our party is striking a balance and is able to reconcile both protecting the environment as well as encouraging sustainable growth. I wonder whether he might turn his mind to those quotes and support our party's approach to this.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker, that will not reverse our opposition to the heavy-handed imposition of a national carbon tax.

Our government, in our time, worked with the major producers in the energy industry on regulations for that industry to set emission intensity limits and to apply compliance penalties for any over-emissions. These producers will accept a national carbon tax because they will pass it on to consumers, and consumers will pay the price for this general tax in a variety of ways. Ontarians are going to pay into the cap and trade system, and the money raised will be used by the Ontario government. It will go into general revenues and will do nothing to effectively lower CO2 emissions in Ontario.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great fascination to my hon. colleague. My recollections of the Stephen Harper years are a little different from those of my hon. colleague.

My colleague is telling us now that Stephen Harper had a great vision of the environment, but I never saw that in all of my years here. I did hear a lot of huffing and puffing and banging on the table to delay action, which has put us even further behind the eight ball after all of these years.

I represent a region that is heavily dependent on resource extraction. When I talk to people in industry, they get it. They say they are willing to put a price on carbon. Industry is willing, if the government will work with it, to find the incentives to start lowering emissions. Industry recognizes that it has to start moving in a positive direction.

I am not opposed to the government on this, if we can find a credible way to move forward. I agree with my colleague on cap and trade. It is a pretty bizarre concept that, in my opinion, has not really produced results. My concern is that, even if we put the government's price on carbon, we are not going to meet the Paris targets.

Could my colleague tell me how we are actually going to be credible in the international market and the international community, if we do not even have a plan yet that would meet the Paris obligations that we are agreeing to in the House of Commons?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we need to recognize that, without a North American climate change plan, we are at serious risk and we will see this as the Liberals impose their one-size-fits-all national carbon tax across the country. We are at serious risk of wrong-footing some of our major industries by applying taxes, which they will pass on to the consumer. In some cases, they will lose competitive advantage in their larger markets south of the border.

There are any number of alternatives to cap and trade in Ontario. British Columbia has the least damaging, the so-called revenue-neutral plan. However, there has been little discussion or examination of the carbon fee and dividend plan, which is even better than British Columbia's co-called tax-neutral plan, because it has been estimated that for most Canadians there would be a greater return of dividends than of the carbon fees that would be paid.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Thornhill, Ontario, for sharing his speaking time with me. I would like to point out to the House that my colleague was once the environment minister. He has a lot of credibility.

This morning, I had the pleasure of speaking in the House and to those watching at home on the House of Commons network. I hope the message will be heard, that this government will not put up more smoke and mirrors and that it will respect Parliament by changing its motion in order to allow our country to continue thriving and to adjust the government's position on the environment.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he would impose, and I repeat “impose”, a carbon tax on the provinces and territories. The word “impose” escaped the lips of this Liberal Prime Minister. Again, during the election campaign, he pulled the wool over the voters' eyes. I have here a long list of broken promises. He talked about a small $10-billion deficit. The deficit is now $30 billion. He said he would bring back letter carriers so that Canadians could get home mail delivery. Where are the letter carriers? The Liberals promised to increase the greenhouse gas reduction targets. Our targets were very good. We acted responsibly and they decided to adopt our targets. They promised to lower taxes for our SMEs, our job creators. That is another broken promise. They said they wanted to work with the provinces and territories, but now they are going to impose their carbon tax plan on them.

They may have once again wasted taxpayers' money by hiring an international firm to evaluate their election promises, which they have not kept. I will provide them with answers and it will not cost much. I will offer my services for free. I can tell them very simply right now that, in the past year, they have not delivered much. There. That just saved $200,000.

Let us get back to the real issue. Canada must ratify the Paris agreement as indicated in today's motion, which reads:

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...

Why should we ratify this agreement? Previous agreements have raised our collective awareness. The 1998 Kyoto protocol applied only to developed countries. That was a step forward. The 2009 Copenhagen accord, a somewhat binding agreement, involved only 26 industrialized and emerging countries. The Paris agreement was signed by 195 countries. Do my colleagues know what is being said about that agreement? It is being described as historic because it is the first agreement on global climate issues to be signed by so many countries.

We must be responsible. We must not mortgage the future of generations to come. This government is causing a financial mess that our children and grandchildren will have to clean up. Can the Liberals pay some attention to the planet for our future generations? Let us try to help give them a better future by leaving them a healthier planet. I am a father, and I believe that I am a responsible family man. As such, I must call on this government to ratify the Paris agreement and meet the targets set out therein. I am doing so on behalf of my daughter Ann-Frédérique, my son Charles-Antoine, and all of the young Canadians who will make up the Canada of tomorrow.

Stop claiming that we, the Conservatives, are the environment's worst enemy. No one on this side of the House in the official opposition gets up in the morning with the intention of destroying the environment. No one. When we were in government, we introduced a number of measures to fight climate change. For example, we created the clean air regulatory agenda; we established new standards to reduce car and light truck emissions; we established new standards to reduce emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and their engines; we proposed regulations to align ourselves with the U.S. Tier 3 standards for vehicle emissions and sulphur in gasoline; we sought to limit HFCs, black carbon, and methane; and we established new rules to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Furthermore, we put in place measures to support the development of carbon capture technologies and alternative energy sources; we enhanced the government's annual report on main environmental indicators, including greenhouse gases; and we, the Conservatives, even abolished tax breaks for the oil sands.

All these measures resulted in a good environment report card for Canada and confirmed the reduction in greenhouse gases.

In 2014, the last full year our government was in power, we reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Canada's share of global emissions decreased by more than 15% between 2006 and 2014. I did say 15%, which means that our share went from 1.9% to 1.6%; we represent 6.9% of this lovely planet. These results were not obtained under the Liberals. We, the Conservatives, reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

As a Conservative member, I held consultations in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, in the beautiful Quebec City area, and I formed a committee on economic development using green technologies in order to help the minister of the environment do her work. Yes, as a Conservative, I worked on sustainable development and I am doing my part just as everyone has a responsibility to do their part.

It makes me sick when we are labelled anti-environment because it is just not true. We are the party that knows that sustainable development and economic development go hand in hand. I would remind the House that greenhouse gas emissions dropped under our watch and that at the end of our term we left a budgetary surplus. The Liberals have to acknowledge that. It is a fact. The Liberal government has already squandered it all.

We think that course of action was worth pursuing. That is why we are in favour of ratifying the Paris agreement. Still, in light of what we have seen from this government, it must not be allowed to impose a new tax because it does not know how to manage things. It is easy for the federal government to impose a tax and tell the provinces and territories to participate and collaborate when it holds a gun to their heads and calls that negotiation. The government encroached on provincial and territorial jurisdiction over health and infrastructure, and it is doing so once again here. Any claim to collaboration and flexibility is just an act.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister arrogantly—if I may use the word—told Parliament that he did not need the House of Commons, and the provinces and territories are being subjected to that same cavalier attitude as he runs roughshod over provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

A new tax will have a devastating impact on Canadian families. The government must not increase the tax burden; it must give Canadians breathing room and enable them to improve their quality of life.

Here is how we think the motion should read. This is what we agree with and are prepared to vote in favour of: “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; and that the House call upon the federal government, the provinces, and the territories to develop a responsible plan to combat climate change that does not encroach on provincial or territorial jurisdiction or impose a tax increase on Canadians”.

We need to try to come up with creative solutions that will have an impact on climate change, and not on Canadian families' wallets.

For our part, we reduced greenhouse gas emissions while balancing the budget. Actually, we did so while leaving a surplus. What is more, we did not stick Canadian taxpayers with the bill. We are asking this government to do the same thing, in other words, to not impose additional taxes on Canadian taxpayers and families.

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

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate, especially coming from the Conservative side, one cannot help but draw a very clear conclusion, which is that the Conservatives have lost touch with what Canadians really believe and want.

It is very clear that the Conservative Party is unique in the sense that, as other countries move toward ideas that will generate a healthier environment, the Conservatives tend to want to steer away from it.

Are there any circumstances whatsoever in which the Conservative Party would consider a price on carbon pollution a positive thing? Is there any time in the future where we will see the Conservative Party say, yes, there is some merit to a price on carbon pollution?

If they want to start listening to Canadians and watching what is happening in the world environment around us, surely to goodness they would recognize the value of some form of a price on carbon pollution. Would the member not agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, what we would do is consult with the provinces in an open and co-operative manner. That is definitely not what this government is doing.

Yesterday the Prime Minister of Canada said he is going to impose a carbon tax. That is not negotiating; that is pretending to co-operate. We on this side of the House have a different definition of co-operation.

My colleague needs to get back to work and make sure that we are adopting positive measures, rather than imposing another tax. We all have the same goal, which is to protect our planet.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for doing such a fine job of reminding members how the former government's approach was realistic, responsible, and respectful of taxpayers. It did not impose a new tax like the current government did yesterday.

I would like to ask my colleague a specific question, since he used to work at the provincial level. Yesterday, we witnessed a situation that could not have been worse for the provinces. While the Minister of Environment was meeting with all of her provincial counterparts, the Prime Minister announced, from his seat in the House of Commons, that a carbon tax would be imposed. These ministers were not even aware that this was happening.

According to the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, who used to work with provincial ministers, was this the right approach? Did it show respect for the authority of the provinces of this Confederation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague with whom I have the pleasure of representing the greater Quebec City area.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, what happened yesterday was just more smoke and mirrors. While the environment ministers were being kept busy, the Prime Minister, who makes all the decisions and flies by the seat of his pants, announced in the House that a tax would be imposed.

If there is such a strong spirit of co-operation in this chamber, why did three premiers slam the door on their way out? What happened yesterday is unacceptable. What is more, this government demonstrated a lack of respect for the House, the provinces and territories, and especially taxpayers. The government is going to dip into taxpayers' pockets.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to the member on that very simple question with regard to a price on carbon pollution. Does the member in any way, in any fashion, believe that the Conservative Party under any circumstances would support a price on carbon pollution?

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

Mr. Speaker, they must stop imposing measures. They should be more constructive and collaborative. Let us work with the provinces to find the best way for each region to protect our planet. That is just common sense.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Repentigny.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathering on traditional Algonquin territory.

As we all know, climate change is a threat unlike any other. We know action needs to be taken to address what I believe is the biggest threat to our lives, our country, and our planet. That is why I will be voting in favour of the motion.

Taking action against climate change is a moral imperative. I do not believe there is another option if we care about our children, our grandchildren, the future of our land and our waters.

To meet this threat and to minimize the potential for its devastating impacts requires global action, global co-operation, and global collaboration. Indeed, our world needs the historic Paris agreement on climate change. It was as a result of our commitment to inclusion and engagement that the delegation to Paris included indigenous leaders from regions across Canada, including from the Arctic and from the north. They are the front line in experiencing the impacts of climate change.

In Canada, achieving the vision of the Paris agreement will require the full inclusion and leadership of indigenous peoples. As Canada's first ministers committed to in the Vancouver declaration, we are working in partnership with the provinces and territories to establish a pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change to reduce our emissions and to ensure Canada takes full advantage of the opportunities associated with the emerging low-carbon economy. This affects all Canadians, and indigenous peoples and northerners in particular.

Going forward, we need to work with our provincial and territorial partners and with indigenous peoples to ensure that all of our voices are heard. For far too long governments did not listen to the warnings from our elders about how traditional knowledge of the patterns of nature did not apply the way it used to, how the ice was thinning and disappearing, how forest fires were becoming more frequent, how new fauna and flora were appearing while others were disappearing.

These changes are having real impacts on real people, and are affecting the ability of indigenous people to exercise their rights, their ability to connect with the land, and their food security. We must listen to the solutions and the traditional knowledge that indigenous people can share if we are to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

We are committed to acting. Budget 2016 includes $10.7 million over two years to implement renewable energy projects in off-grid indigenous and northern communities that rely on diesel and other fossil fuels for heat and power. That kind of partnership is essential and I hope it is only the start of what can be accomplished. We will invest close to $130 million over five years to strengthen the science we need to inform decision-making, protect the health and well-being of Canadians, build resilience in the north and indigenous communities, and enhance competitiveness in key economic sectors.

Good things are happening, especially in the north. We can learn a great deal from the spirit of collaboration reflected in the close links among aboriginal peoples around the circumpolar region through the Inuit Circumpolar Council, the Gwich'in Council International, and the Arctic Athabaskan Council. The very existence of these organizations is due to the fact that indigenous nations took it upon themselves to find a way to speak in unison on issues of shared concern.

The visible effects of climate change, from melting permafrost to waning sea ice, makes the Arctic a region that demands our attention. Indeed, in the wake of the Paris conference, the Arctic is the focus of global attention. The world will be watching how we in Canada respond to the real and urgent concerns expressed by indigenous peoples in the north, and northerners in communities across the country. Ratifying the Paris agreement will move us globally in that direction and hopefully will slow down the effects of our warming planet.

I would like to speak a little more on the effects of climate change in the north. As I mentioned earlier, we are seeing vegetation changes, animal migratory changes, and permafrost melting. All of these things are causing abrupt shifts in traditional practices such as hunting and trapping, as well as practical problems such as maintaining infrastructure on melting grounds.

The north is experiencing the impacts of climate change right now. That is a real threat to the sustainability of our communities. This threat is in addition to the high cost of energy and limited infrastructure that already challenge the sustainability of rural and northern remote communities.

Recognizing this, the Government of the Northwest Territories has been working actively to reduce its carbon footprint. Between 2001 and 2011, the territorial government reduced its emissions from operations by 30%. In addition, NWT ranks second in the country on a per capita basis of installed solar power. The feasibility of wind development is also being investigated in the Inuvik region next year.

We in the Northwest Territories understand that a carbon price is an important measure to get people to stop using the fuels that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, but the very high cost of fuel in our communities is already an incentive to reduce consumption. Northerners do not choose high-carbon options. They are one of the only choices.

In addition to the relative high cost of electricity due to our long winters and the use of heating oil, heating costs in some of our northern communities are seven times the cost of those using natural gas in Edmonton.

The NWT government and residents are being diligent and responsible in controlling emissions of greenhouse gases in the Northwest Territories and preparing for climate change impact. Even though the north only accounts for a small fraction of Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions, there is a commitment from all levels of government to find a way to reduce our carbon footprint.

It is my hope that we at the federal level will continue to assist northerners in their work to provide reliable, affordable alternatives to carbon-intensive fuels for our communities and businesses. Budget 2016 was a great first step.

It is also important that the federal government understands the potential harm that increased carbon prices could have on the fragile resource-based economy of the Northwest Territories if implemented in a manner that does not work for us in the north. Carbon pricing can penalize northerners by raising their already high cost of living or discouraging the economic development northerners need to support themselves and their families.

I am confident that a supportive approach that recognizes the unique realities of the north will be followed. Through ongoing discussions, partnerships, and innovation, along with investment in green energy, clean growth, and better infrastructure, we in the north will continue to reduce our greenhouse emissions in support of the Paris agreement and the Vancouver declaration. In doing so, we will underscore our commitment to ensure all Canadians, including northerners and indigenous peoples, are partners in this global effort.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for his speech today about northern communities. Indeed, I am from northern B.C. We see how much costs are for diesel for aboriginal communities and how difficult it is to access it, as well.

We are embarking upon a study about poverty in my particular human resources committee. One of the issues that we brought forward was the carbon tax and how much the carbon tax is going to tax communities where, as the member said, the cost is already extremely high.

How is a carbon tax on something that is already a necessity in northern communities going to help?

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the question could be better posed as, “How can we afford not to do it?”

We, in the north, have been wrestling with the issue of how to reduce one of the major cost drivers in our communities, which is the high cost of power, which is pretty much generated in all of our communities by diesel.

I served for three terms in the Government of the Northwest Territories, part of that as the environment minister. We looked at all different ways of lowering the costs and looking at alternate energy. It fell on deaf ears for 10 years. We applied to the green fund. We applied to many different pots of money that, historically, were in place, only to be rejected or to receive no response.

There is opportunity for us to move forward in the area of biomass. There is opportunity to look at cogeneration. There is opportunity to look at wind, hydro, solar. There are many opportunities, including expanding the lines that we have in terms of supplying our communities with hydro. We have the Taltson River dam, which has been releasing water because they cannot use and sell the power. We do not have the resources to expand the lines. We need a partner.

The current government is the one that has talked to us and has committed to work with us on it. We feel confident. It is time to move forward.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. He has expertise on the Far North and brings that expertise to the work of the indigenous affairs committee.

Today we are discussing the amendment the NDP brought forward to help fix the motion being debated, because what we have been asked to vote on in the House does not include the obligation to negotiate, discuss, and meet with indigenous community leaders, as well as the municipalities. The reason it is important to put this in the motion is that we hear all the time that we are going to talk with indigenous communities who have traditional economic knowledge. Yet when it comes to federal environmental assessments, issues are rubber-stamped without the involvement of the communities. The government can approve the LNG pipeline while ignoring the five hereditary chiefs who came to Ottawa to discuss it.

New Democrats think it is really important that this be written into our obligation as parliamentarians. If we are going to move toward ratifying the Paris accord as a nation, we need to include the first peoples, who have been left out, for example, of the health accords. They were not involved. We need to change this nation-to-nation relationship and it has to be done in a concrete manner.

I would ask my colleague if he will support the New Democrat amendment to make sure that these negotiations involve indigenous communities and their leaders.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the Northwest Territories seems to do things a little differently from the rest of Canada. It certainly involves the aboriginal governments in everything it does. The regulatory process, for example, includes 50% representation from aboriginal governments. Therefore, any projects that move forward include the involvement of aboriginal governments from the time the application is first filed with the regulatory board, half of whom are aboriginal members, to the review that takes place, which includes aboriginal governments.

The Government of the Northwest Territories does a very good job of sharing information with aboriginal people across the north. The majority of the membership of the Government of the Northwest Territories, MLAs, are aboriginal. I certainly encourage other governments to do the same and not to try to do a selling job to aboriginal people, but rather to use an inclusive approach. There are many models that we can draw from, but the north has a very good model that could be used. It sets an example and sets the stage for the rest of the Canadian public.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I was fortunate to attend the Paris climate change conference, COP21, as the Bloc Québécois representative. I must say that I really felt that I was part of an historic event.

COP21 was much more than a gathering of nations. It was nations, cities, municipalities, NGOs, bankers, businesses, business groups, scientists, and more. It was absolutely the largest international conference ever organized. That shows just how important the issue is.

When Laurent Fabius brought down his small gavel to declare that the final declaration was adopted and no one, not a single person, objected in the least, we all realized that something had changed in the world. It is now clear that climate change can no longer be denied.

The Minister of the Environment said so herself: “Climate change is real and we no longer have time to debate it. The clock is ticking for us to do something about it.” This change in attitude was striking for Canada, to everyone's great relief, including mine.

Parties to the Paris agreement agreed on the facts, which is new. The agreement also spells out a target that applies to everyone, and that is major progress too. Climate change skeptics have been consigned to the dustbin of history alongside flat-earthers.

Agreeing on the facts and on a target is a good starting point, but we still have to do the work. Nobody wants the temperature to rise by more than 2°C. Some said that 1.5°C would be better. Unfortunately, what the states agreed to at the Paris conference will cause the temperature to rise by 3°C, which will be catastrophic. We know we are headed for failure, so we need to change course immediately, but the government is doing just the opposite by adopting the former Conservative government's targets.

Those targets call for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. That first date is important, and the target is virtually meaningless. France's target is 40% by 2030. Quebec's is 80% by 2050. Germany's is 95% by 2050. Sweden threw down the gauntlet to the whole world when it announced its goal to be the first fossil-fuel-free country on earth.

However, it is important to note that Quebec and the rest of the world use 1990, and not 2005, as the reference year. It is no accident that Canada is choosing to ignore the 15 years between 1990 and 2005. It is quite simply a free pass, a free ride for the oil sands industry.

I find it troubling that this government is still thinking about promoting the development of this industry, one of the most polluting industries in the world. I can barely contain my frustration at hearing the Prime Minister claim to be a champion of the green economy, while the energy east project is still on the table. The Liberals do not know how to respond; the Conservatives criticize the Liberals; and the NDP criticizes the assessment process, as if that would in any way change the nature of that project.

From the very beginning, the Bloc Québécois has been standing up in this House and saying what everyone else thinks but would not dare say: energy east is about energy from the last century, and the oil sands will kill COP21.

The energy east project will increase oil sands production by 40%. That is huge. The government would have us believe that this is a historic day and things are going to change, but as the expression goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Now that it is clear that the government has no intention of reining in dirty oil, we need to ask ourselves who is going to pay the price, for as modest as the Liberal-Conservative targets are, Canada is still headed towards utter failure. Without a major change, Canada is going to miss its target by over 60%. Frankly, at this rate, Ottawa will not see the slightest reduction until 2050.

I cannot emphasize enough that this expected failure does not even take into account the pipeline projects currently on the table, which are being considered against all logic.

If the government does not assume its responsibilities and does not establish an effective strategy that takes into account the efforts made by each province, Quebec will once again pay the price. By choosing 2005 rather than 1990 as the reference year, by ignoring 15 years of explosive GHG growth caused mainly by oil, Quebec's efforts are being swept aside. In those 15 years, Quebec's emissions remained the same. By comparison, greenhouse gas emissions in Saskatchewan soared by more than 50%.

While Canada was pretending to work towards compliance with the Kyoto protocol, Quebec was keeping pace with the rest of the world, not by giving lovely speeches or expressing noble intentions, but by working very hard. Quebeckers bet on the modern era and on the future. We invested billions of dollars to reduce our environmental footprint. For example, our aluminum smelters replaced their old polluting cells at great expense in order to decrease their emissions by 27%. They cannot replace their major cells a second time.

We do not need a calculator to figure out that it would be a joke to require the paper mills, who have already reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 68%, to work on reducing them by another 30%. That is bordering on 100%, which might push them to close up shop.

To achieve any sort of result in fighting climate change we have to face reality. It must become expensive to pollute and profitable to respect the environment. Those who have made the effort should be able to reap the rewards, and those who have done nothing should pay the price. Otherwise, we are left with good intentions and, worse yet, the polluters are rewarded.

So far nothing in the Liberal plan aligns with this responsible approach. By refusing to set an emissions ceiling, the government seems to be saying that its targets are like New Year's resolutions: we make them on January 1 and we break them on January 2, without any consequences.

There are some things that only a country can do, such as setting emissions ceilings that apply to everyone and setting binding targets that take into account the efforts that have been made since 1990, so as not to penalize the good students by asking them to do twice as much work. As a former teacher, I understand that perfectly well.

We need to ensure that everyone participates in the carbon market, even polluters. Otherwise, we will end up with a market with too many sellers and too few buyers, which is not very effective. Ottawa can and must do this.

Some people in Canada will not be happy, but this needs to be done anyway. Canada could take a number of measures within its areas of jurisdiction. We could be here all afternoon talking about what actions could be included in a proper plan, but that would not do any good as long as people refuse to make polluting a costly venture and being environmentally responsible a profitable one. There is a price to pay for polluting, a real price. For now, Canada is basically choosing not to pay it and is hiding its head in the sand so that it can stay in the 20th century longer.

Wilfrid Laurier said that the 20th century belongs to Canada. We say that the 21st century will belong to Quebec. There is more than one nation in Canada and there is also more than one environmental and economic reality. Some provinces have more work to do than others. Those provinces could shut down coal-fired plants, for example. Since Quebec is ahead of the game, we could take measures regarding the electrification of transportation, something that we are already working on.

When I listen to the debates in the House and look at the past 20 years of inaction on the part of successive governments, I get the impression that Canada is trying to buy time until it can get every last drop of oil out of the ground.

The stone age did not end because there was no more stone, but rather because the human race found ways to do things differently and to do them better. The same goes for oil. Quebec is already looking elsewhere and has already begun the shift pretty successfully.

The 21st century is tailor-made for Quebec to become one of the most prosperous places on the planet. We want nothing to do with the oil age. Quebec should already be considered a big winner on North America's carbon market. We should be the pioneers. We must find our own source of energy, one that is ours alone, with Hydro-Québec, a source of energy that will completely change our trade balance. The oil age is not our age; Quebec wants nothing to do with it. Understandably, this will drive Quebeckers to ask themselves whether this country, this oil-fuelled nation, is also theirs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my colleague from the Bloc has indicated that we do need to have a tax on pollution. In fact, that is what we are seeing, a price on carbon pollution, and there has been fairly good debate on that particular issue.

My question for the member is this. I understand and I can appreciate and ultimately disagree with what she and her party want to be able to accomplish. I am curious to know to what degree the member believes that a national government has to play a leadership role, where it can, to protect Canada's environment and to look at negotiations and responsibilities. I am referring specifically to the Paris agreement. To what degree does our national government have to implement policies that would be better for the environment overall?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Canada must indeed begin by respecting provincial jurisdiction. That is step one. It must also respect the efforts made by Quebec, such as using 1990 instead of 2005 and investing billions in industries that have invested in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.

Another thing Canada can do is halt oil sands development. Not everyone is going to like that. It should leave the oil sands in the ground. It could also provide major incentives for people to buy electric vehicles. I myself just bought an electric car, made more affordable by the Government of Quebec's generous subsidies. If Canada had a similar program for electric vehicles, more people could buy them.

Canada could even buy some. Why not? It could replace the government fleet, including all of those little buses that do such a good job of bringing us here. That might be a good idea. It could also invest heavily in environmental research and development. It could support the development of ethanol plants, which use forestry, agricultural, and household waste. Do my colleagues require any more ideas? We can talk about it.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from Repentigny for her very interesting speech.

My question is on the fact that we now have a new government that is committed to respecting indigenous peoples, supposedly through a new nation to nation relationship, as the members opposite like to say ad nauseam. These indigenous issues come up both in the Vancouver declaration and in the Paris agreement. I was rather surprised to see that there is no mention of indigenous peoples in the main motion.

I would like the hon. member's opinion on this fundamental issue. The motion talks about the provinces and territories but omits an important constitutional player, namely Canada's indigenous peoples. How does the hon. member explain this omission?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

I sincerely believe that there is no better barrier to the excessive development of natural resources than the opposition of indigenous peoples exercising their fundamental rights. In that sense, I do think indigenous peoples are helping us. We are standing together against this excessive development.

There is another nation in Canada: the nation of Quebec. The government often seems to forget that indigenous nations and the nation of Quebec are united in their attempts to stop the excessive development of natural resources, which is why we support the NDP amendment.