Debates of Oct. 4th, 2016

Paris Agreement

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, I am a little confused. I thought the motion we are debating today is whether the House supports the government to ratify the Paris agreement and to continue with the Vancouver declaration to have the federal government work with the provinces and territories to develop a plan. It sounds like my hon. colleague is saying that we should not, and he does not support the ratification of Paris nor the Vancouver declaration.

I hope the hon. colleague who, I assume, would support the Paris declaration would confirm whether he supports Canada to actually ratify this agreement, yes or no?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not allowed to say whether people are present in the House, but I can say from the question that I do agree that the member is a little confused. My opening words were that of course the NDP would vote in favour of the ratification of the Paris accord.

I can understand the member's confusion because her government has been talking a good game when it comes to climate change and reducing greenhouse gases. However, what the Liberals have actually put on the table is a carbon copy, a mimeographed version, of Stephen Harper's plan. It is the same plan, same targets, same timelines. I do not blame the member for being confused. If this is about ratifying the Paris accord, there is nothing in here on first nations, and, by the way, indigenous peoples were key in the Paris discussions and in the accord. There is nothing in here that would allow Canada to respect article 4, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Paris accord, no reduction in greenhouse gases and no across-the-economy plan.

I understand the confusion. We are hoping to clarify it and we are hoping that the member will stand with us when we insist that the Liberals' motion be amended to include first nations.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Halifax.

I rise in the House today to speak to one of the most important issues today—climate change. The decisions we make in the House will have a lasting impact on future generations of Canadians, and people around the world.

Climate change was one of the Prime Minister's top priorities when he was elected. The government is committed to transforming Canada into a more vigorous and resilient low-carbon economy and to positioning Canada as a leader in the fight against climate change.

Our government also promised to help the poorest and most vulnerable countries fight climate change. The year 2015 was pivotal in terms of global action, most notably because of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development adopted in September and all of the work that went into finalizing the Paris agreement in December.

The 2030 agenda is a 15-year global framework that recognizes the social, economic, and environmental aspects of sustainable development along with factors related to peace, governance, and justice. The 2030 agenda signals a shift in how the world sees development. It recognizes that issues such as inequality and climate change are important in both developed and developing countries and that we have to work together to address those issues.

On November 27, 2015, at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Malta, the Prime Minister announced that Canada would contribute $2.65 billion over five years to help the poorest and most vulnerable developing countries respond to climate change and adapt to its impacts.

The Paris agreement, adopted on December 12, 2015, is an historic agreement that promotes ambitious action by all countries toward low emissions and a climate-resilient global economy. More than before, the Paris agreement brings to the fore the impacts of climate change on poverty, food security, health, and the ability of people to realize their human rights.

Developed countries have committed to provide resources to assist developing countries to address climate change, and Canada has already stepped forward to help in a number of ways, including $30 million for the least developed countries fund to support adaptation efforts among the poorest and most vulnerable countries; $10 million to the World Meteorological Organization for its work to develop climate risk early warning systems; $50 million in contribution to the achievement of the G7 commitment to enhance access by developing countries to climate risk insurance; $150 million in contributions to the achievement of the G7 commitment to develop renewable energy in Africa; and $300 million to the initial resource mobilization of the green climate fund, a key global facility aimed at mobilizing climate finance in support of the climate efforts of developing countries.

Climate change and the environment are key considerations throughout all of Canada's development programming, and we will continue to work with our development partners to help them adapt and support their transition to low carbon, resilient economies.

The implementation of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development is a priority for the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, along with the entire government. We are committed to reducing poverty and inequality in the world, in part by refocusing our development assistance to help the poorest, most vulnerable, and fragile states.

During my recent visit to Guatemala, I witnessed how climate change has impacted one of the country's most important lakes, Lake Atitlán, putting the economic livelihoods of thousands of families around its shores at risk.

At the end of August, I also saw the devastating results of an El Niño-related drought in Ethiopia, which is facing its worst food security crisis in decades. Failed rains in much of the country have left an estimated 18.2 million people in need of emergency food assistance. Canada's $125 million productive safety net program, recently approved by our government, is just one of the ways we are helping Ethiopia to improve household food security, nutrition, and economic well-being in the face of climate change.

Canada has much to offer in terms of know-how, expertise, and technology to help the poorest and most vulnerable tackle climate change. The impacts of climate change that I saw in Guatemala and Ethiopia are only two examples of how our world is changing. It is clear that climate change is a global issue. However, it is also intensely local and personal.

At COP21, Canada joined “mission innovation”, a global partnership aimed at doubling government investment into clean energy innovation over five years, while also encouraging private sector leadership in clean energy. Starting in 2017, Canada will provide over $1 billion over four years to support clean technology development in Canada, including in the forestry, fisheries, mining, energy, and agriculture sectors.

We will also be investing $100 million each year to support clean technology producers to promote a clean environment and a strong economy, and an additional $200 million to support innovation. These strategic investments, as part of an ambitious export and trade strategy, will help us tackle climate change while also creating jobs and encouraging growth.

While I spoke about the impacts abroad, we also know that climate change is impacting us right here at home. On August 4, 2014, 190 millimetres of rain, two-months' worth, came down in approximately eight hours on my riding of Burlington. In my riding, roads and highways were flooded, creeks filled with debris, and more than 3,000 homes were damaged. This was a wake-up call. In Burlington, we realized that we are not immune to changing weather patterns.

This past summer, my community found itself facing the opposite: drought. The Niagara Peninsula received between 40% to 60% of its average precipitation this summer. Farmers were calling it the worst season in decades for crops.

This contrast of flooding one year and then drought the next is the local impact that we are beginning to feel. On the two-year anniversary of the Burlington flood, over 200 people came out to my town hall to discuss federal action on climate change. This turnout was unprecedented for a town hall event in Burlington. It demonstrates that Canadians want and need us, as legislators and as leaders, to act on this issue.

This is why I am proud of the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday of our plan to price carbon pollution starting in 2018. Carbon pricing is one of the most effective ways to incentivize Canadians to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Our plan puts in place nation-wide reduction targets that are realistic and achievable while the economy still grows. They go hand in hand.

Pricing carbon is just one of the many ways we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At my town hall, I heard great suggestions from members of my community. Many residents discussed the importance of using systems thinking rather than individual thinking when it comes to climate change action. There are broader structural system changes that can be catalyzed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Where 40% of our emissions are produced by the transportation sector, residents talked about the need to examine whole supply chains to ensure that transit and infrastructure developments are green, resilient, and self-sustainable.

When we talk about the Paris agreement and agenda 2030, we also need to think about local solutions for local needs. At my town hall, residents talked about planting more trees, fewer lawns, and more native plants which are self-sufficient and drought-resistant. This would result in less water use, more carbon capture, and more oxygen in the air.

Residents also spoke of the need to support the reduction and recycling of food and material waste, expanding compost programs and banning plastic bags. These are small but significant measures we can all take.

Burlington residents emphasized that we also need to ensure that environmentalism is affordable for all Canadians. Lower-income Canadians need to be included in this process. Green living should not be an exclusive lifestyle.

My constituents also stressed working with indigenous Canadians to build communities that are resilient to climate change; protecting clean air, water, and land; and building on local knowledge and expertise. Overall, we need to make sure that all Canadians are part of this process.

In my community the message was clear: the federal government has an opportunity to step up and take leadership on this file. It was even suggested that perhaps we start with the renovation of 24 Sussex, and that the construction of all new federal buildings be mandated to meet the principles of the Living Building Challenge or its equivalent.

I know that environmental problems seem insurmountable at times, but there are practical and doable solutions that we can be taking right now, and we must not lose momentum. We can start right now by ratifying the Paris agreement.

I look forward to working on this file with my colleagues in the House.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments and speech. However, I am having a hard time reconciling two things: the Liberals' fine words about signing the Paris agreement, which they are now asking us to ratify in the House, and the tangible plans and measures they presented in the House.

They are still approving major energy production projects that are going to increase our greenhouse gas emissions. I have a hard time reconciling those two things. I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain to all the members of the House how the government plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions when it is still approving new projects that will create more emissions and adopting a multi-year plan that is identical to the Conservatives'. The Liberals also have the same targets as those set by the Conservatives.

Can the hon. member reconcile these two things?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

It is a bit of a challenge for him to understand this as I understand that the party opposite does not believe that we can both grow the economy and protect the environment at the same time. However, this is something that we ran on, that Canadians know we need to do.

When it comes to the Paris agreement, I think we are in agreement that we should ratify it to move forward.

We are working with our provincial and territorial counterparts to develop a plan for climate change that is pan-Canadian, that is going to ensure that we not only protect the environment for generations to come, but also ensure that there are good jobs, clean growth, and a better economy.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's speech and all of the others with a lot of interest because this concerns everybody.

As we have said before, we do support the Paris accord but we do not want to have a new tax. A new tax is less money in the pockets of the people. It is the worst way to make the economy strong.

My hon. colleague referred many times to the Vancouver declaration but the Vancouver declaration belongs to the provinces. It is based on a deal with the provinces and the federal government working hand in hand. We saw everything but that yesterday. Yesterday we heard the government say it was either its way or no way. There was a big surprise however. The provincial ministers were upset with that and three of them left the room and slammed the door.

Do you not think this is really true, the Vancouver declaration, yes or no?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Maybe the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent could address the member as “she” as opposed to “you”.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are working hand in hand with the provinces and territories to develop a pan-Canadian strategy. Canadians elected this government to come up with a plan and to work with the provinces and territories. They also elected us to show leadership on this file.

Eighty-five per cent of Canadians already live in a jurisdiction where there is a price on carbon pollution. That means that we want to make sure that there are reasonable and achievable national targets. The Minister of Environment is working with her provincial and territorial counterparts to achieve this for all Canadians.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are finally witnessing climate change. We have seen it in southwestern Ontario, in Niagara, and in Windsor. Right now we are seeing the effects in Haiti where a deadly hurricane has hit.

I would like my colleague to expand on Canada's commitments abroad and the effects not only in Canada but abroad of our climate change commitments.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada's commitments abroad when it comes to climate change are incredibly important, because we all know that climate change recognizes no borders. We all have a contribution to make and we all have a role to play in addressing this.

Our Prime Minister announced $2.65 billion in climate change mitigation efforts.

As I have travelled around the world, particularly in Africa and Central America, I have seen the devastating impact of climate change. We must work with our partners because this is an issue that affects all of us.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, Housing; the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, Health; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Indigenous Affairs.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is again my honour to rise in the House to support the motion to ratify the Paris agreement signed by Canada on April 22 in New York.

As well, I am honoured to speak in support of the motion's call for support for the Vancouver declaration signed on March 3, 2016, which calls on the federal government, provinces, and territories to develop a pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.

Since coming to this House I have spoken many times about the matter of climate change, including on the harmful impacts of climate change in my home town in the riding I represent, Halifax, Nova Scotia. I have often told my colleagues here that I view climate change as one of the most urgent and pressing matters facing this country and this Parliament.

That is why I introduced my private member's motion M-45 to this House, which addresses the growing threat of climate change by requiring GHG analyses of federally funded infrastructure.

I am grateful to all of those in this chamber who helped pass M-45 last Wednesday, and I am also extremely encouraged, not only to see that motion pass but also to see so clearly that the great majority of members in this place, more than two-thirds of those present in last Wednesday's vote, recognize the importance of taking concrete action to address climate change. It is my sincere hope that this demonstration of support for real climate action is repeated again with respect to the motion we are debating today. I believe we have no other responsible choice.

In the spring of 2016, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change issued a call to Canadians and asked for their help to shape Canada's climate change policy. In the months that followed, certain members of Parliament from across the country hosted town hall meetings in their ridings to solicit that feedback from their constituents. On June 28, more than 250 people packed a room at Dalhousie University for my own town hall meeting on climate change. The energy was intense and Haligonians were eager.

Participants at that event were split up among 10 themed groups. Halifax residents themselves identified the themes through a social media outreach from my office the week before. Sitting in groups of 10, each group was provided with a single large sheet of paper, a handful of markers, and three simple questions on their respective themes: “What are your big ideas? What do you think government should know about this? What are your top recommendations to government on this?”

In no time, the tables were demanding a second sheet of paper and then a third and in many cases a fourth piece, easily having filled their paper with their big ideas to fight climate change. From a wide variety of backgrounds, ages, experiences, and political affiliations came an extraordinary set of ideas that our government can take to tackle climate change. My team and I took everything recorded on those sheets of paper and provided them, word for word, to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and I posted them at hfxclimateaction.ca.

The citizen turnout and the passion, the high volume, and the thoughtfulness of the feedback was such a tangible demonstration of just how strongly the people of Halifax want real climate action, but not only that, but of just how much our city wants to be a leader, an ally, in what is one of the greatest challenges facing our government and our planet today.

Then again, this cannot come as much of a surprise. I have said before that Halifax finds itself on the front lines in the battle against climate change, with the rising sea levels and the extreme weather events that go with it. The impact of continuing climate change, if not addressed, will have serious implications for Halifax and for all of the communities we love across this country.

As one of Canada's primary coastal cities, Halifax faces a clear and present danger with sea level rise. It puts the quality and quantity of our drinking water at risk, and it jeopardizes Halifax's status and viability as a great Canadian port city, a key economic driver in my riding, my province, and eastern Canada.

It stands to harm marine habitats and the commercial viability of fish stocks, like salmon and cod. Transportation infrastructure will deteriorate, and increased costs for infrastructure repair and maintenance will become a larger and larger strain on public resources.

The impact of climate change is just as threatening right across Canada, where we are surrounded by more than 200,000 kilometres of coastline, where so many of our beloved cities and communities lie, and where as my colleague the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the member for the Northwest Territories have pointed out, our indigenous communities are disproportionately affected.

That is why I am speaking in favour of ratifying the Paris agreement and supporting the Vancouver declaration. I will begin with the Paris agreement.

In December of last year, as our then new Minister of Environment and Climate Change and our Canadian delegation left for Paris to participate in climate discussions, I will admit I was very nervous.

I knew our delegation was strong and exceptionally capable and absolutely committed to a positive result, but I just was not sure how successful negotiations would be because, after all, the success of the agreement depended not only on our own government but on the capacity for consensus among many nations from across the world, each with unique interests and challenges. Previous efforts had failed, and I wondered if enough had changed in the world and here at home for the Paris negotiations to reach a better result.

Thanks in no small part to our Minister of Environment and Climate Change, things had changed, and the Paris climate talks were in so many ways a terrific success. More than 190 countries signed the agreement, each agreeing to do their part to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels. To date, more than 60 countries have ratified the agreement, representing over half of the world's global greenhouse gas emissions. With that we have surpassed the threshold number of 55 countries required to ratify the agreement in order for it to come into effect, and with the recent ratification by the European Union, we have achieved the requirement that those who ratify it must represent 55% of global emissions. This train is on the tracks.

The agreement is now in force. The global community is forging ahead, and we must join it.

The Paris agreement is a historic one, and it is urgent that we seize its potential. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer to support its ratification and put it into force here in Canada. The climate is changing and the impacts of global warming are closer than they have ever been. I only hope it is not too late.

Our government did its part in Paris, and now we must do our part here at home by supporting the motion before us.

Now I would like to address the Vancouver declaration. In much the same way that Canada cannot act alone to curb global emissions, our federal government cannot act alone to curb our country's emissions. We must work with provincial and territorial governments, as well as with indigenous groups to collaborate on a national plan to fight climate change.

On the heels of the Paris agreement, first ministers and indigenous leaders from across the country met in Vancouver in March of this year to discuss climate change. Parties agreed that we must transition to a low-carbon economy to ensure clean, sustainable growth, and the group committed to developing collaboratively a pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.

At the conclusion of their talks in Vancouver, parties formed into four working groups: one on carbon pricing; one on clean technology, innovation, and jobs; one on mitigation opportunities; and one on climate resilience and adaptation. The findings of these working groups will help inform the pan-Canadian framework.

I am proud to support a government that respects the need for intergovernmental collaboration on files like the environment. At the same time, our federal government has made it clear that it will take the necessary steps to meet our international obligations.

Pricing carbon pollution, for instance, is one such step, as the Prime Minister outlined yesterday. Indeed, pricing carbon pollution was one of the commitments of the Vancouver declaration agreed to by all premiers.

I believe implementing this mechanism can be done while working with provincial governments, which are already taking concrete steps to reduce emissions within their jurisdictions.

Our government is committed to ensuring each province has the flexibility to meet its individual needs, such as in my province of Nova Scotia, where we are already leading the nation of terms of GHG reductions and where we are well on our way to meeting our 2020 target of reducing emissions to 10% below 1990 levels.

Pricing carbon pollution is only one step, and I look forward to December when provinces and territories come together again to reach a pan-Canadian framework on the entirety of clean growth and climate change.

As I said earlier, we must work together to reach a solution, for none of us alone can fight climate change. No region, no country can win this war against climate change on its own; so we must unite, bound together by our common interests, our common survival, and the trust placed in us by Canadians coast to coast to coast to take meaningful action on climate change.

I believe the Paris agreement and the Vancouver declaration are the best shot we have, and so I fervently hope that the House will join me in voting in favour of the motion that is before us.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that and I want to thank my colleague for his speech. Throughout his speech he talked about flexibility and the Vancouver agreement and how hard he wants to work for his province of Nova Scotia. However, the environment minister of Nova Scotia walked out of that meeting in Montreal yesterday, so I do not think the people of Nova Scotia are quite as on board with this carbon tax as the member may believe.

The member mentioned that 85% of Canadians live in an area where a carbon tax already exists. Did the Prime Minister and the government have an agreement in place with the province of Alberta or Nova Scotia to have a $50 per tonne carbon tax by 2020?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, the Vancouver declaration, the one agreed to by all premiers, contains language around a carbon price. What the federal government has done now is to flesh that out with a meaningful action plan.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, in 1992-93, I was part of a group of environmental organizations and industry organizations, a collaborative of TransAlta, oil companies, etc., working in the name of economic instruments. We were trying to design air quality regulations that would deal with a number of air pollution issues, including climate change. We were proposing economic instruments. We really hoped the Liberals, when they got elected, would take the legislation we had designed, but they did not. That is a very long time ago.

The Liberals were elected in 1993 on a platform of climate change action. Instead, they allowed emissions to increase by over 30%, and the UN reported that our pollution increased more than that of any other signatory to Kyoto.

Knowing the member's commitment to the issue, I am hoping he can tell me what has changed. What lessons have the Liberals learned from making deep commitments that they cannot fulfill?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have to say I am much more interested in preventing future carbon emissions than worrying about the carbon that is already out there in the world. This historic Paris agreement is about looking forward together, finding solutions, and forging solutions together. These solutions are going to come in a variety of different ways. The federal government is recognizing that flexibility is required, that each province has its own realities on the ground, whether those are economic realities, social realities, or realities about the different ways in which energy is generated in those provinces. A suite of options is certainly going to be available under that rubric of flexibility for provinces to meet those targets.

This government has proven, I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is absolutely committed to addressing the challenge of climate change in a very serious way.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to turn to my colleague, in terms of some of the solutions he was proffering during his speech.

Halifax–Dartmouth is going to have to take a leadership role for Atlantic Canada; there is no doubt about it. Our government is pursuing an innovation agenda for Atlantic Canada.

Could he help us understand where he might see some of the economic opportunities—jobs, jobs, jobs—inherent in addressing the climate crisis by becoming more efficient?

For example, there is a lot of discussion about Atlantic Canada becoming a global sustainable food superpower; particularly, in aquaculture and the fisheries industry.

Could he help us give some thought to how he sees the positioning of Halifax–Dartmouth as a major urban and suburban area to provide solutions and create wealth?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to shift away from the pricing of carbon pollution to some of the innovative aspects of addressing this challenge.

Of course, the reduction of burning of fossil fuels creates an enormous opportunity for the development of new renewable technologies. Nova Scotia has been, and continues to be, a leader in those fields; centred in Halifax, largely.

Sequestration of carbon is another another area of immense innovation happening right now. There are start-up and clean-tech firms in Halifax right now; for example, CarbonCure Technologies, which is injecting and sequestering carbon into concrete and making a very strong building material that will last over time.

This is an opportunity to innovate. It is an opportunity to embrace the Atlantic growth strategy and create a green economy for the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

It was about a year ago that the Prime Minister was criss-crossing Canada, talking about ushering in a new era of collaborative federalism. Not only was the Prime Minister talking about ushering in a new era of collaborative federalism, he was talking about sunny ways, consultation, co-operation, and collaboration. Yesterday, Canadians found out what the Prime Minister really meant when he spoke of collaborative federalism, when he spoke about sunny ways, consultation, co-operation, and collaboration when he unilaterally announced the imposition of a massive federal tax grab on the provinces.

The Prime Minister told the provinces that they shall impose a carbon tax or a price on carbon, they shall do it by 2018, and if they do not do it, the federal government will do it for them by imposing a price on carbon at $10 a tonne in 2018, escalating to $50 a tonne in 2022. There was no consultation or collaboration, just a unilateral imposition of a massive tax grab from the Prime Minister. Talk about sunny ways and collaborative federalism.

How did the provinces and territories respond to the Prime Minister's collaborative federalism? Premier Wall said yesterday that he was stunned by the Prime Minister's disrespect toward the provinces and territories. Premier Wall's environment minister said that Saskatchewan had been, effectively, railroaded. He called it a bad day for federal-provincial relations.

The environment minister from the Yukon was so surprised by the Prime Minister's unilateral announcement that he said it literally sucked the air out of the room. Then, later in the day, the environment minister for Nova Scotia walked out of the room on the federal environment minister and was joined by the environment ministers for Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan. That illustrates just how the provinces are responding to the Prime Minister's so-called new era of collaborative federalism.

Speaking of the federal environment minister, who had three provincial environment ministers walk out on her yesterday, she had the audacity over the weekend, I think it was, to characterize the sensible measures brought forward by the previous Conservative government and the Conservative government's targets as fake. I will tell the House what is fake. The Liberal government's commitment to sunny ways is fake. The Liberal government's commitment to collaboration, co-operation, and consultation is fake. The Liberal government's commitment to ushering in a new era of collaborative federalism is fake. I will say what else is fake, and that is the Liberal government's commitment and the Liberal Party's commitment to reducing GHGs. That is also fake.

Canadians will not forget that this is the same Liberal Party that, in 1993, campaigned on reducing GHGs by 20% from 1988 levels by 2005. What happened between 1993 and 2005? GHG levels increased exponentially. What about Kyoto? That was the Liberal commitment to reduce GHGs 6% below 1990 levels. What happened to Kyoto? It was a promise made, a promise broken. It was another fake Liberal commitment.

However, what is not fake is the cost that this massive Liberal tax grab would have on hard-working Canadians. The average Canadian family would end up paying as much as $2,600 annually by 2022. That would be $38 billion out of the wallets of hard-working Canadians. Premier Wall characterized this Liberal massive tax grab as one of the largest tax increases in Canadian history, and he is right.

Looking across Canada, let us face it, the economy is slowing but in my province of Alberta things are particularly difficult right now. We have seen in the last year some 200,000 Albertans laid off. Unemployment is reaching near double digits. It is the worst it has been in 30 years. Youth unemployment certainly has reached double digits. I think it is around 16%. In city centres such as Calgary, the office vacancy rate is approaching 25%. Things are tough. People are hurting.

What has the current government's approach been to deal with the particularly difficult situation in the province of Alberta? One of the first things the government did upon coming to office was to kill the northern gateway pipeline, which would have helped get Alberta energy to market, which would have helped Alberta become less reliant on exporting energy to the U.S. Then the government proceeded to add new layers of red tape to the pipeline approval process to make it more difficult to get pipeline projects approved and ultimately built. Now this massive tax hike would be imposed on the people of the province of Alberta and all Canadians. I cannot help but simply conclude that the current government likes to kick Albertans when we are down.

However, it did not have to be this way. The Prime Minister could have kept his word. He could have worked in a collaborative way with the provinces to come together with a truly pan-Canadian solution. He could have worked with industry leaders to undertake a true sector-by-sector approach to reduce GHGs. However, he did not do that. He simply said it was his way or the highway with a massive, unilateral, federal tax grab.

We know that the result of this would be unfortunately not good. Hard-working, tax-paying Canadians would be worse off, they would be poorer, and Canada would be no closer to achieving its Paris targets.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton's contribution to this debate on the Paris agreement. I find it kind of rich that he is proposing to lecture this government with respect to its approach on federal-provincial-territorial relations given the approach of the previous government for the last 10 years, which was essentially to ignore provinces and territories. In fact, there was never really any meaningful consultation that ever took place from that particular side of the aisle as it related to the provinces.

If we look at the specific instance of what we have done in the past few days on this particular file, it simply was to impose a pricing system on carbon for those provinces that would not participate in a particular program.

The member also referred to the specific instance of Alberta. Again, I do not accept his characterization because the Alberta government has already put in a particular pricing system, and therefore, it would not need the federal intervention. How does he actually square his party's particular approach with ours?

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

Madam Speaker, quite frankly, let us talk about the current government's track record on this issue a little further.

The Prime Minister, after the 2015 election, after he went to Paris at the expense of $1 million to taxpayers on this junket, said that within 90 days the provincial leaders would sit down and they would hammer out a pan-Canadian approach to combat climate change and to implement the Paris agreement. Ninety days came, and there was a meeting in Vancouver, but no agreement. There was merely an agreement to agree.

The Prime Minister said that he has a mandate from the premiers, that they agreed to, basically, this imposition of a carbon tax, but Premier Wall said it was not true.

What we have seen is a complete lack of leadership from the Prime Minister and from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. They are very happy when it comes to having photo-ops with celebrities and going on junkets to places like Paris, but when it comes to coming up with a comprehensive plan, a pan-Canadian plan with the provinces, the Prime Minister has failed to deliver, and as a result, he was left to impose this unilateral federal tax grab. That is why—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation during today's debate.

Over the past few months, the Conservatives have been talking a lot about this issue and criticizing the government, but I have not heard them propose many potential solutions. It would be interesting to hear their opinion of a proposal that was in their own campaign platform during a past election, namely, a carbon cap-and-trade system. That was their position. They had even set a price on carbon.

Today they seem to just want to criticize the government. I would like to know whether they have anything to propose. In order to be an effective opposition, it is important to come up with alternatives, so I would like to hear the solutions they are proposing to really reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and ensure a sustainable environment for future generations.

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

Madam Speaker, when we look at the Conservative track record on reducing GHGs, it is a track record to be proud of.

Under our previous Conservative government, we took a sector-by-sector approach so that we could grow the economy and at the same time reduce GHGs. We imposed a national regulatory regime on the largest sources of GHGs, namely the transportation and energy sectors. We brought forward comprehensive regulations that have effectively phased out building coal-fired power plants. We invested billions of dollars in clean technology.

Do members know what the result of that was? We were the first government in the world to actually reduce GHGs. That is the Conservative record. That is the record I support. That is what we need to keep doing.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I did not want to interrupt the minutes for questions and answers, but before we resume debate, I want to remind members that when somebody else has the floor, pursuant to Standing Order 16(2), when a member is speaking no member shall interrupt him or her except to raise a point of order. Therefore, I would remind members to please hold off. If you have questions, you can get up to ask a question.

The other thing I would appreciate is that, because there is only five minutes when we are doing 10-minute speeches and people want to ask questions, you keep your questions short. If you wish to speak more, then you should try to get on the speaker's list for a speech.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.