Debates of Oct. 4th, 2016

National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to an order made on Friday, September 30, the House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division on the motion of the second reading stage of Bill C-22.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #115

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

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

Paris Agreement

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 20 minutes.

I also encourage members to take their discussions into the lobbies.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Ottawa South.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to pick up where I left off before question period.

I want to go back to the theme I was raising, which was one of opportunity. For so many decades now, the debate around climate change has been steeped in terms that I describe as pain, grief, and cost. It actually is very disappointing to hear today and this week so much narrative from the Conservative official opposition that seems mired, stuck, in this context of pain, grief, and cost.

In every situation, we have moved historically as a species, as a planet, through all sorts of phases. I prefer to shift the discussion from the magnitude of a challenge, and it is a big challenge, what we are trying to do is a big challenge, to the magnitude of opportunity.

Let us refocus the lens to look at opportunity. In some of the remarks I made earlier, I talked about the magnitude of opportunity for environmental technologies. Goldman Sachs is tracking this on an hour-by-hour basis. The reality is that there are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, ultimately millions of jobs available to us, if we want to retool our economy. This is the magnitude of the opportunity before us.

I want to end by reminding my colleagues on all sides of the House that this is an issue that really does transcend partisanship. For example, I give Prime Minister Brian Mulroney 100% credit for understanding that the best, most efficient way to solve the acid rain challenge in North America was to use a cap-and-trade mechanism with President Reagan to reduce NOx and SOx emissions across North America, and thereby save millions of freshwater lakes. I support the real Preston Manning, who is imploring and begging Conservatives from around the country to get with the program and understand the role and the purpose of market mechanisms.

As my remarks come to an end, I think we can come to a consensus here amongst all parties. It is time for us to move forward. It is time for us to show the leadership that we can.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague comes from Ontario, too, and his speech had a lot in it that was in another familiar speech given about 10 years ago by a colleague in his brother's government. Back when the Ontario government brought in the Green Energy Act, a gentleman named Smitherman mentioned that 50,000 new jobs would be created. The member's brother said it would be difficult switching from making cars to windmills and that it was not an easy thing to transform an economy.

Unfortunately, these things did not come to pass. In 2012, Stats Canada actually said that the Green Energy Act would lead to an overall employment drop of 2,200 to 2,500 full-time-equivalent jobs. Overall employment in Ontario basically has been stagnant for the last decade with decreased jobs in mining, manufacturing, and forestry; decreased competitiveness internationally; decreased profitability; and decreased wages. In my community, we are living it in the automotive sector and we are seeing the challenges with international competitiveness.

Has the federal government actually done a cost-benefit analysis and an economic analysis of what the effects of this policy would be for Canadians, particularly in the manufacturing sector?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is not seriously trying to posit in the House that the green energy plan of Ontario is responsible for the 2008 collapse in the global markets. Surely to God, he is not trying to foist that on unsuspecting MPs who are listening.

The reality is this. It is going to take a concerted effort. It will take an effort to harness our programming, our fiscal incentives. It will take an effort to streamline the costing of carbon. It will take an effort to ensure, as we have promised to do, that all the revenues are transferred to each and every province as a revenue-neutral shift. The provinces can do with that revenue as they wish, just as Alberta has been doing for decades. Alberta led this country in imposing the first serious charge on carbon. There are lots of opportunities here for us.

Let me just cite one that was eliminated by the member's previous government. We had an eco-energy program to retrofit our homes. A start-up sector with thousands of individuals was squashed by a government that did not believe in the role and purpose of government to assist in this transition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member often mention science and facts. I like that because I want to focus on science and facts.

We have seen that global warming is happening. We have seen that we need to do something about it. When we have looked at the problem, we see that Canada is less than 2% of the footprint, and that 60% of the footprint is with the U.K., the U.S., China, and India.

When it comes to market mechanisms, there is a point to be made about the timing of implementation. If we implement a market mechanism before the U.S., for example, then we see what is happening now in my riding, where jobs and expansions are being cancelled and moved to the U.S. The carbon footprint moves and is not eliminated, so it does not help the planet. It just loses Canadian jobs. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the wonderful thing about the Paris treaty is that for the first time in 50 years all major polluters and parties are inside the tent. That is why it is such a watershed moment for the globe and human history. The United States and China have made hard commitments. They have timelines. They have to move to reduce on their own basis their own targets. We are showing leadership because Canada has always shown leadership. It is going to be important to co-operate with our American and Mexican neighbours in the context of NAFTA. There is no doubt about that.

It is important for us to keep focused here on this watershed moment. For the first time, 200 nations have come together and said, “We are going to get serious, like adults, and deal with this crisis. We can no longer pretend. We can no longer invent a fiction.”

With respect to Canada being responsible for a small percentage of the global emissions, not having Canada take action is like standing at a campsite 20 feet apart from others camping beside you, holding a bag of garbage over the lake, as they hold their bag of garbage, and saying we will stop putting our garbage in the lake when they stop putting their garbage in the lake. That is not the way in which we can move forward.

That is why Paris was a watershed moment. I am very encouraged. I think we are going to make huge progress.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to be engaged in this debate today. I also want to congratulate my colleague from Ottawa South for his leadership on the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy for many years, which is an organization that did the kinds of analyses that the Conservative member was talking about and showed that taking action on climate change would be positive for the economy as well as the environment.

What I would like to do next is to thank the citizens of Vancouver Quadra for their commitment to action on climate change, and for their support for my various efforts to put this front and centre in the agenda of the government over the past eight years.

Vancouver Quadra is home to many pioneers who understand the challenge of climate change and are committed to solutions. Whether they be members of the David Suzuki Foundation, which raises awareness; professors who have researched this issue and spoken up, such as Dr. Bill Rees, who was the inventor of the concept of the carbon footprint, the environmental footprint; entrepreneurs working on solutions with fuel cell batteries and other clean technologies; the youth who have engaged in a number of organizations and gone door to door to raise the issue of climate change and the impact on their generation; or ordinary people in the streets of Vancouver Quadra, this is a high priority in my riding.

In addition, it is an emotional day for me to rise in support of the important part our government played in the Paris agreement and as a problem solver with respect to climate, and to rise the day after our Prime Minister announced that our federal government would ensure there is a national price on carbon.

A carbon tax has been part of the lives of British Columbians for almost a decade. Our citizens are proud of it. They are proud that the emissions were driven down over a number of years by this carbon tax. They are very proud that our economy outperformed the rest of Canada for most of those years. The carbon tax in British Columbia helped return the B.C. Liberal government to power for its third and fourth terms. This is something that has been proven elsewhere, and it is about time that Canada has a federal government that is prepared to move forward on it.

As everyone knows, during the election campaign, we promised to protect the environment while stimulating the economy. We promised to take a leadership role nationally and work with the provinces and territories to address climate change and put a price on carbon emissions to reduce carbon pollution. That is exactly what the Prime Minister announced in our plan yesterday.

In fact, the Prime Minister has positioned Canada as a world leader on this front. Look at what we have done in the past year. In December, we participated in negotiating the historic new climate agreement at COP21 in Paris. The Prime Minister also signed the Paris agreement in New York on Earth Day.

The first ministers have committed to implementing policies in support of meeting or exceeding Canada's 2030 target of a 30% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels, and there are five working groups helping to build a framework and a plan to turn this into a reality.

At the North American Leaders' Summit in Ottawa this summer, we made an extraordinary commitment. We pledged that by 2025, 100% of the electricity that the government uses in facilities managed by Public Services and Procurement Canada, one of the government's largest real estate custodians, will come from clean energy sources.

To action our commitments, our Prime Minister committed to providing an additional $20 billion for green infrastructure over 10 years. In addition, in our recent budget, almost $3.5 billion over five years was announced to address a range of climate issues, including air pollution and ecological protection, and to improve environmental assessments and restore public trust.

We are also investing to help Canada make up for lost time in the global clean technology economy.

There are $280 million to support the development of clean technologies and innovation in this sector in Canada.

The investments also include $120 million in non-polluting transportation networks and charging stations, an additional $50 million for sustainable development technologies in Canada, as well as $86 million for energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources.

This brings me to a subject that is very important to me, since I have been tackling it directly for the past few months, namely, what we are doing to reduce carbon emissions resulting from federal government operations.

The federal government is the largest employer, property owner, and purchaser in the country. As such, it can make a real difference. By getting our own house in order, we are reaffirming our commitment to the fight against climate change worldwide.

As part of the federal sustainable development strategy, we have ambitious targets and a plan to reduce federal greenhouse gas emissions.

To help achieve these reductions, in budget 2016 we announced we would invest up to $2.1 billion in repairs and retrofits to our wide range of properties and buildings and in the greening of government operations. That includes improving military housing, which is so badly needed, upgrading border infrastructure, and modernizing the generation of energy for marine communication and traffic services.

It also includes significant reductions in the carbon footprint and energy use of our buildings in the national capital region and elsewhere. For example, Public Services and Procurement Canada manages six heating and cooling plants that serve 85 buildings in the national capital region. These plants currently generate an annual average of 117 kilotons of greenhouse gas emissions, and they are in need of major updating.

We will therefore take this opportunity to implement more efficient technologies that will reduce both our long-term costs and our emissions by over 45% in the future. This will also enable us to examine the idea of using biomass as an alternative source of energy, which could produce even better results.

In fact, when I spent a day learning about the emission reduction leadership at the University of British Columbia in my riding, I toured the new biomass fuel power plant that is contributing to the university being on track to achieve its goal of a 67% reduction of emissions by 2020. Climate action is about reducing emissions, saving money, and creating jobs.

I wrote my thesis on global warming 24 years ago. I helped build the foundation for B.C.'s climate action as the provincial environment minister for three years, and now I have the privilege of working on climate solutions in this government. I am happy to say we are creating a systematic plan to reduce the government's own greenhouse gas emissions. We will do that by acquiring tools, improving the environmental performance of buildings, equipment, and operations, minimizing fuel consumption and exhaust emissions from the federal fleet, and supporting green or low-carbon procurement. The plan also could include reducing the carbon footprint of employee activities like travel and commuting.

Our success depends on the collaboration of federal employees, so we will be involving them and seeking their contributions so that they can bring their ideas forward. We are also studying their successes abroad and in other provinces.

We are working toward having a coordinated, ambitious approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the federal government, and I ask members to join us in working toward a clean, sustainable economy that is Canada's future.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed working with the hon. member when we were both on the environment committee, and I know she is very dedicated.

The member's government has yet again signed on to the G20 that they will remove the perverse incentives to the fossil fuel sector. The former Conservative government promised to do that too and did not do it. There are growing concerns that for some sectors the failure to remove the perverse incentives will simply undo any effect of the carbon tax.

Could the member speak to that and to why the government has not immediately moved to remove those perverse incentives?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have immense respect for the member opposite, and we did enjoy our time together on the environment committee.

I would like to confirm that we have committed to reducing the subsidies for fossil fuels; and that will be phased in. We also committed to putting a price on carbon, and I am delighted to remind the member that we made that announcement yesterday. Further than that, we are working on a plan to address this government's own greenhouse gas emissions in operations right across the country. I look forward to discussing that further with the member in the months to come.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for her speech, but I do have a really important question that the previous Liberal member failed to answer. Have the Liberals actually done a cost-benefit analysis, or have they done an economic analysis of what this is going to cost Canadians, particularly in communities such as ours? She comes from a community in British Columbia that does not have a lot of manufacturing. It is extremely important that we be competitive with our international partners.

In the speech by the Ontario government, we heard minister Smitherman promise 50,000 new jobs, but later the government said it was not based on any analysis. It actually came up with that number without taking a look at it first, and it did not take into account the number of job losses due to higher energy costs.

Would the member let us know in advance? Have the Liberals actually done an analysis on this? How many jobs are going to be affected? How many of these green jobs that were once promised in Ontario are we going to get now? It did not happen before with the same policy, but how many are we going to get now? How many job losses are there going to be because of the increase in energy costs?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, for the Conservative member, there have been analyses about the economic benefits of a transition to a clean-energy economy for well over a decade, and those are some of the analyses that came out of the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which his government not only eliminated, but then it took down all that information, the research, the data, the economic analysis that was on the website, because it did not want the public to see. It is the very analysis that informed his prime minister's decision to commit to putting a price on carbon in 2008, which the Conservatives woefully failed to do. Thanks to inaction by his government, our country dropped 70% in terms of our market share in the clean energy economy.

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

Madam Speaker, I will try to ask a short question.

We have been listening to this government for a year, and I am one of those people who are tired of hearing fine words without seeing any action. With the NDP's proposed amendment, we are reaching out. We invite the government to walk the talk and include indigenous peoples in this process.

Will the member agree to support our subamendment?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the member that there has been a historic commitment to indigenous communities by this government, and it has been far more than words; it has been action.

I would like to remind him of the action yesterday, committing to a national price on carbon. I am excited that we are working toward having the clean energy economy supported fully by this government through the investments that I mentioned, but also through becoming a test bed for innovation, increasing our own use of clean technologies, and supporting entrepreneurs.

We intend to improve energy efficiency standards for consumer and commercial goods. There are many other elements in our plan to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Outremont.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion asking the House to support the government's decision to ratify the Paris agreement made at the COP 21 on April 22 of this year. Of course, New Democrats in the House will support the ratification of the Paris agreement.

However, we would be remiss if we did not also recognize what a deep disappointment it is for all Canadians who believed the Prime Minister's promise of change; for all Canadians who want a secure, healthier future for their children and grandchildren; and for all Canadians who know that significant emissions reductions are the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Instead of respecting its promise to Canadians and its obligations to future generations, the Liberal government has adopted the woefully inadequate Harper Conservative targets. That will see Canada fail to meet its previous Copenhagen commitment, on top of the previous Liberal failure to meet Kyoto targets. Of course, tragically, that will also mean that we will fail to keep the promise of a 1.5°C temperature limit made by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in Paris.

Canada is still without a national greenhouse gas reduction plan, and the Liberals have not taken the steps necessary to meet targets here at home to comply with our international climate obligations, including the carbon tax announcement yesterday.

What we can guarantee with a carbon tax increase is an increase in taxes. What we cannot guarantee with a carbon tax is a decrease in greenhouse gases. The only way to do that is with a cap-and-trade system.

Theoretically, if the carbon tax were to get high enough, it would discourage people from doing the types of things that are producing GHGs. However, Canada has the best working model for greenhouse gas reduction, and it is the reduction scheme put in place to come to grips with a problem that was not global warming at the time, but it was acid rain. Instead of CO₂, which is the main greenhouse gas, we were dealing with SO₂, sulphur dioxide.

Big companies like Inco had said that they would never put in the scrubbers in their stacks, because they were going to cost tens of millions of dollars. Madam Speaker, in your part of the world, you know that well. However, when Canada and the United States got together and put in a cap-and-trade system, limiting the amount of SO₂ that could be produced year over year, we took care of acid rain.

Do members know why? It is because companies like Inco were forced to make a market decision at some point. They were either going to have to buy SO₂ credits in the market created for that substance, or they were going to put in the scrubbers; and the year that it was cheaper to put in the scrubbers, they did just that. This is what a cap-and-trade system does. It is a complicated notion, but it actually works.

Canada right now is simply dealing with the Conservative plan. That is what we are taking to the table, and we will once again fail future generations, because the Liberals, of course, have not followed through on their promise. We share the disappointment of many Canadians who voted Liberal thinking that they would get real change on a big subject like reducing in greenhouse gases, only to realize that what they got was Stephen Harper.

Instead of keeping the promises they made to Canadians, the Liberals adopted the completely inadequate targets of the Harper Conservatives, which do not even meet the Copenhagen commitments and break the promise made by the Minister of the Environment in Paris to have a maximum temperature increase of 1.5°C.

Canada still does not have a national plan to reduce greenhouse gases. The Liberals have done nothing to meet the targets in Canada.

Naturally, any progress in this area is a step in the right direction. However, yesterday's announcement will not help us act quickly enough to reduce GHGs, and Stephen Harper's targets will certainly not get us there.

According to the recent report from Environment and Climate Change Canada published in February, Canada will still miss the low targets set by Stephen Harper for 2030. The Liberals will not meet the Harper targets for 2030. This is recent and comes from a non-partisan source, Environment and Climate Change Canada.

What the Prime Minister announced yesterday will not close this gap, and the targets will not be enough to help us meet the international commitments we made under the Paris agreement.

I was listening attentively to my colleague from British Columbia. She told us what the government was going to do to reduce the federal government's emissions. She talked about the federal fleet. That is very interesting.

However, it was not a question of the federal government's action with its fleet that was signed in Paris. The Government of Canada signed an accord that required us to reduce our greenhouse gases. It is interesting to hear her say that they are going to do a certain number of activities, but what is required under article 4, paragraph 4, of the Paris accord is an economy-wide effort to reduce our greenhouse gases.

Now she described the fact, and I knew her at the time, that she spent three years as British Columbia's environment minister. Our paths crossed at the time. For three years, I was Quebec's environment minister. For every one of those three years, in Canada's largest province by territory and second-largest by population, in Quebec, we were able to reduce greenhouse gases. We had an across-the-economy plan to do just that, and we believed in it. That is what happens when we use the resources of our government to produce a positive result for the future.

What others have done, and what the Liberals continue to do, is to try to use this for public relations purposes.

I will never forget my old classmate, Eddie Goldenberg, who did something quite unusual for a Liberal. He told the truth. He explained that when the Liberals signed Kyoto, they had no plan. In fact, he used a lovely expression. He said they signed Kyoto “to galvanize public opinion” which no doubt, in his mind anyway, explains the fact that under the Liberals, after signing Kyoto, we missed our targets by 30%. In fact, we had one of the worst records in the world for increases in greenhouse gas productions. One of the only countries that was worse than us was Kazakhstan. If that is the company that the Liberals are comfortable keeping in terms of dealing with our international obligations, I will leave it to them.

What I know is that Canadians expected better. Canadians who voted for change, thinking that the Liberals would deliver change, are bitterly disappointed to realize that it is just more of the same.

Fighting climate change with Liberals or Conservatives is six of one and half a dozen of the other. However, the Liberals do it with a smile and go to Paris.

I was there when the Prime Minister waved his hands and proclaimed that Canada was back. What he failed to mention is that Canada was back with Stephen Harper's plan, targets, and timeline.

Yesterday, we learned that the Liberals did not even have a plan to achieve Stephen Harper's targets. Such is the Liberal reality. As usual, they know how to capitalize on this to improve their public relations. However, they are doing nothing to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Why is that so important? I remember when I was young and in school, reading in an encyclopedia that if the ice in Greenland melted, it would raise the seas to such a level. A picture accompanied it. I saw large cities around the world that would be completely sunk by the amount of water that would enter the oceans by the melting of the ice cap on Greenland. I remember being terrified by the thought, but saying how could that possibly ever happen? A week ago, new figures published show that hundreds of billions of tonnes of that ice cap in Greenland is melting, moving into the oceans, changing currents, changing salinity, changing the planet. We can do something about it, but it begins with reducing greenhouse gases.

We heard the Prime Minister today. He did not dare deny when I read to him the three cases that were before us, that he had Stephen Harper's plan, that the government's tax could not guarantee a reduction, and that we were not going to be able to meet our obligations. He could not deny it. Members saw that, as well as I did. That is terrifying for future generations.

Very few of us who are here today will feel the full force of the changes being wrought on the planet by our inaction. We have had enough of the posing, the posturing, the feel-good phrases. They are all empty. It is time for action on climate change, and the only way to do it is to reduce greenhouse gases.

We can change course, set new targets based on science that are consistent with our international commitments, adopt a national greenhouse gas reduction plan, and take immediate urgent action regarding internal climate policies in order to meet our international obligations and especially our imprescriptible obligations to future generations.

We have to convert these international ambitions into tangible policies here at home. The NDP knows that it is possible to grow the economy while protecting the environment, but this government is currently failing at both at the same time. So far, the Liberals seem to be continuing the pattern of previous governments: make international commitments and then fail to live up to them.

With each passing day and each new decision, Canadians are questioning whether the Liberals have any intention of keeping their promises. They are finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile the Prime Minister's words with the actions of the Liberal government.

We saw this particularly in the wake of decisions like last week's approval of Pacific NorthWest LNG. Again, I refer to my Liberal colleague from British Columbia who just spoke before me. It was incredible to hear her boast about the work with regard to first nations. What is required by the Supreme Court is meaningful consultation and accommodation, whether it is in the case of site C, where the government approved it while it was still being debated before the courts, or in the case of LNG, which is a single project that will increase the entire greenhouse gas production of the major province of British Columbia.

Liberals did that with the stroke of a pen while it was still being opposed by six major first nations in that province. They say that is respectful. We say it is an abject failure to meet the responsibilities imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada. That Pacific NorthWest LNG project, as planned, would in fact be the single-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in all of Canada. It would produce more than 10 million tonnes.

My Conservative colleagues ask, what about globally? That is one of the Conservatives' main talking points: Canada only represents a small percentage of the globe in the fight against climate change.

What if Canadians, in the Second World War, had adopted this position? That because Canada only represented a small percentage of the overall forces of the allies in the Second World War, we would not have fought. Canada fought. Canada has to do its part to fight climate change.

The Liberals promised a new era of renewed relationships with indigenous nations. I remember when the Prime Minister, just last week, sent three ministers to the Vancouver airport, only 1,000 kilometres away from the people and territory that will be directly affected by their decision. That decision was made without proper consultation and in spite of major opposition.

The Liberals said they would fix the environmental assessment process, but instead they are still relying entirely on the Harper Conservatives' broken promises. That is right, there is a fourth broken promise. This also threatens key juvenile salmon habitat that the Liberals promised to protect.

Four broken promises in one single decision. That is where the Liberals are on the environment and respect for first nations. That is why the NDP knows that we are the only progressive voice in this House, standing up on key issues like climate change.

That has been the story of so many of their other commitments. It is almost as if they have different categories of broken promises. They promised to restore postal delivery door to door in Canada, and now they are pretending that is in a special category. That is a promise that they do not even remember making.

Here, this is a different category of promise. During the election campaign, the Liberals promised a whole new series of targets. Then, once the election was over, they said it is a whole new series of mimeographed targets, the same ones we saw from Stephen Harper. They just forgot that word.

Soon the Liberals will be celebrating their first anniversary in power, which will be marked by broken promises and failures on important issues, such as fighting climate change.

What better example do we have of the Liberals breaking fundamental promises than what this party, which prides itself on its image of a party that works for peace, did in Geneva, Switzerland in August. Members should brace themselves. This Liberal government voted against nuclear disarmament in Geneva. Members heard correctly. This is yet another example of the Liberals not keeping their word and they have not even been in office for a year. However, that is fundamental. We saw it with the Kyoto protocol, which the Liberals signed for public relations purposes. We saw it with the Copenhagen agreement when the Conservatives were in office, and emissions have increased significantly since then.

Let us not forget that the federal Liberals have been promising to do something about climate change since 1993. Jean Chrétien ran on that platform in 1993. The Liberals used the same tactic during the last election. They took so many of the same positions as the NDP that many Canadians thought they could count on the Liberals as a way of getting rid of Harper. They thought that, since they had been having the wool pulled over their eyes by the Liberals for only 149 years, they would give them one last chance.

Less than a year later, those people are starting to realize that they were misled. They are beginning to become disillusioned. The people who voted Liberal are extremely disappointed to see that all they are getting is Stephen Harper's plan but with a smile. Unfortunately, for future generations, that does absolutely nothing to change the fact that greenhouse gas emissions are rising and there have been changes in the climate itself.

If we go above the 2°C mark, we will be at the tipping point. Global warming will have negative and irreversible effects on ecosystems, the global economy, and human beings in particular.

However, it is becoming increasingly clear that even such an immediate and urgent threat is not enough to make the Liberals do more than hold press conferences, make empty announcements, and spout rhetoric, clichés, and platitudes.

The New Democrats have consistently stood up for urgent and effective action on climate change. We have introduced progressive policies for Canada to transition to a new and vibrant low-carbon economy. We will keep fighting on behalf of Canadians because Canada cannot fail the global effort to fight catastrophic climate change.

The Liberals cannot continue to break their promises. Their words on climate change must be matched by meaningful action. They cannot continue to operate under Harper's broken environmental assessment process. We all remember what they promised in cases like Kinder Morgan and others in British Columbia, in particular to the Dogwood initiative. We will bring in a whole new credible environmental assessment process and we will restart those evaluations under that new process, an entirely broken promise. Believe me, the people in British Columbia know it is an entirely broken promise.

When a project like Pacific NorthWest LNG is approved without a new process and one that considers climate targets, that is what we are talking about. How can the Liberals approve any of these major new projects if they are already failing to meet their international obligations to reduce greenhouse gases? It is nonsense. They cannot do it. Yet that is what the Liberals would have us believe, that they can approve these massive new projects, the biggest greenhouse gas emitters in Canada, while at the same time pretend they will meet international obligations. It is impossible to do. What the Liberals should have done was respect their promise to come in with a new process, make it credible, and include the analysis of greenhouse gases every step of the way.

We have proposed an amendment to the government's motion to press the Liberals for a clear plan, with updated targets and specific measures to meet our Paris commitments, including our obligations to first nations, but words are not enough. We are past the point where Canadians will accept empty promises on climate change and we are past the point where our environmental and economic future can afford more broken promises on climate change. Canadians deserve better. The New Democrats will keep working with hope for a better future for us all.

I will close by saying that we in the New Democratic Party will always stand strong for real environmental change in Canada. It starts with a commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. That is the only way to curb climate change.

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

Madam Speaker, I totally disagree with the leader of the New Democratic Party on many fronts. When I look at how progressive our government has been on the environment file, it demonstrates very clearly this government is listening to what Canadians want. On the one hand, when we talk about the carbon tax on pollution, and that really is what this about in good part, the New Democrats say that we have not gone far enough. On the other hand, the Conservatives say that we have gone too far, that we are damaging the economy.

The leader of the New Democratic Party talked about the LNG. If it were up to the NDP, we know there would be no pipelines. The difference between the New Democrats and the Liberals is that Liberals understand the importance of the environment and the economy. We can move forward on both fronts.

Would the leader of the New Democratic Party not acknowledge that it is in the interest of Canadians for us to listen to them and to move forward on both fronts, and that in fact it can be done? We can deal with the importance of the economy and the environment.

The Paris agreement is a positive step forward on the environment. That is what Canadians want and that is what our Prime Minister and our government are delivering.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, if ever there was a poster boy for empty promises, empty phrases, cliches, and commonplaces from the Liberals, it would the member.

He said that he totally disagreed with what I just said. What is interesting is I gave his Prime Minister the opportunity at question period to deny those three propositions: that they had Stephen Harper's targets, no plans to even meet those targets, and that Canada would increase its greenhouse gases. He could not deny them. Neither can the member.

He says that the Liberals are progressives. Since when does a progressive government abjectly fail to respect first nations and the Supreme Court mandated obligation of meaningful consultation and accommodation? They are not progressives.

He says that we believe they have not gone far enough. On that he is wrong, because they have not gone anywhere except back to Stephen Harper's plan, his targets, and his timeline. They have totally failed their obligation to future generations. They have failed Canadians who believed them when they said they represented progressive change. The only way to deal with climate change is to reduce greenhouse gases. They have no plan to do that. They are a total failure.

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

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy the hon. member's speeches and questions. I would definitely agree today with what he said about the broken promises of the Liberals and the absolute lack of a plan, which seems continual for them.

However, I have a concern about the carbon tax. CBC posted the cost increases that people could expect to see under the new carbon tax. I worry about seniors on fixed income and those making less than $40,000 a year, those who already did not get any tax relief from the government. Does the member share my concern?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the Liberals' so-called middle-class tax reduction gave the largest tax reductions to people earning over $100,000 a year and gave zero dollars and zero cents of tax reduction to families earning less than $40,000 a year.

I had a chance to visit your riding with you for a few days, Madam Speaker. I do not know, but it seems to me that the middle class in your riding is probably a little like that in a lot of ridings in Canada. A lot of people who earn $40,000 would describe themselves as middle class. Therefore, who really was the target of the Liberal tax reductions if not the privileged few? Of course, for the Liberals, that means their base, the people to whom they talk.

With regard to the taxes, there is no question that this type of consumer tax will, first and foremost, make it difficult for those at the low end of the spectrum because they have no way of avoiding it. People driving Maseratis do not really care how much they are paying for their gallon of gas. They will keep paying for it. However, it is different for someone who takes public transit and that goes up because of the cost of diesel. One would hope that in whatever formula it takes, whether a carbon tax to put a price on carbon, or a cap-and-trade system to put a tax on carbon, those responsible for applying it would ensure to put in a proviso to ensure those with lower incomes would receive compensation from the government. That would be the only fair thing to do.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to put a question for my colleague, the leader of the NDP and the member for Outremont.

Yesterday, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands suggested that I had misled the House by saying the previous Liberal government had not failed because it actually came up with a plan after it ratified Kyoto. I look forward to my leader clarifying this. My understanding is that under the Paris agreement, and it is very specific under article 4, that when they move to ratify, they actually have to table specific provisions of how they will undertake rapid reductions at the highest possible ambition.

Yes, the government yesterday announced that it would go forward with a carbon tax. However, what the Liberals have not come forward with is the whole bundle of actions, which they promised during the election and for which people are calling, including more rapid phase-out of coal-fired power and to incent the direction toward a cleaner economy.

Does the member agree with me that it is probably not proper to ratify yet, since we do not have a plan?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, we do not have a motion that mentions first nations, and that is something to which the government should be paying attention. I can guarantee it that first nations are paying attention to it.

With regard to the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands, clearly she has missed a couple of episodes. Yesterday the Liberals promised to do something starting in 2018. What is interesting is that because it is going to be 2018 none of the information with regard to any reduction or otherwise of greenhouse gases is going to be available for the election in 2019. By the way, 2018 miraculously is the also the date that was chosen by Stephen Harper for his $65 a tonne for carbon. We know that neither ever happened.

My colleague from Edmonton Strathcona asked about the accord. Article 4, paragraphs 3 and 4, require two specific things. Every time they come up with a new figure for their greenhouse gases, it has to show a reduction from their previous figures. That is the first breech of the Paris accord by the Liberals because they are sticking with the same old figures.

Article 4, paragraph 4 says that they have to have an economy-wide plan for a reduction of greenhouse gases that will produce the most important result possible. The Liberals came in today and talked to us about the fleet of trucks in the federal government. That shows how totally disconnected they are from the reality of the Paris accord. They do not even understand what they have signed. However, they do know one thing: public relations like they did with Kyoto.

Let us ensure Canadians know his is empty rhetoric from the Liberals once again.