Debates of Oct. 4th, 2016

Paris Agreement

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

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

It is an honour to rise today to speak to the ratification of the Paris agreement and the economic opportunities for Canada. Addressing climate change must transcend politics. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to work on this together, all countries, all levels of government, all parties. Doing nothing is not an option.

Through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris, our government worked hard helping to create an agreement to reduce our global emissions and to mitigate the impact that climate change has on those most vulnerable in our world.

Canadians should be proud of the positive role their country has played in the international negotiations. In December 2015, 197 countries representing 98% of global GHG emissions signed on to the agreement, highlighting that the world is taking action to significantly reduce its carbon footprint. Many countries, including Canada, are in the process of taking the necessary steps for the agreement to come into force as soon as possible.

The Government of Canada embraces the fact that, in the 21st century, growing our economy and protecting our environment go hand in hand. Taking action on climate change provides economic opportunities while maintaining a sustainable environment and thriving communities in Canada.

The world is shifting to clean technologies and deploying clean energy faster than ever before. Due to sustained technological progress, the costs for renewable energy have been falling significantly over time and have become cost-competitive with those of fossil fuels in certain regions. Technological improvements to energy storage have also been gaining momentum, which will facilitate wider deployment of renewable energy.

Clean technologies can also create new opportunities for traditional resource sectors in Canada and will provide new employment opportunities. Focusing Canada's efforts on science skills, business leadership, technical skills, and immigration of highly qualified workers will be paramount to accessing these opportunities.

As an example of the magnitude of these opportunities, the International Energy Agency estimates that the full implementation of climate pledges at Paris would require the energy sector to invest $13.5 trillion in energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies from 2015 to 2030.

The year 2015 saw a record investment of $329 billion in the global clean energy sector, up from $62 billion in 2004. The clean technology sector is already an important contributor to Canada's economy. Around 50,000 people are directly employed in more than 800 firms in the Canadian clean technology sector, and the Canadian clean technology sector grew by about 8% per year from 2008 to 2013, which is more than three times as fast as the economy as a whole. During that same period the global market grew at an even faster rate of 10%, suggesting that Canada has opportunity for further growth if it can keep up with the progress being made by other countries.

In March 2016, the Prime Minister and the provincial and territorial first ministers signed on to the Vancouver declaration. The Vancouver declaration entailed several commitments from first ministers, including the implementation of GHG mitigation policies in support of meeting or exceeding Canada's 2030 target of a 30% reduction below 2005 levels of emission, including specific provincial and territorial targets and objectives; an increase in the level of ambition of environmental policies over time; the promotion of clean, economic growth to create jobs; and an enhanced co-operation between provinces, territories, and the federal government.

In delivering concrete results to Canadians, the Vancouver declaration also established a pan-Canadian framework for combatting climate change, under which four working groups were put in place to identify options for action in four areas, including clean technology. One of these federal-provincial-territorial working groups focuses on clean technology, innovation, and jobs, and will deliver options on how to stimulate economic growth, create jobs, and drive innovation across all sectors to transition to a low-carbon economy, leveraging regional strengths.

We are looking forward to the final report, which will be published this fall, providing policy options for federal, provincial, and territorial partners to implement in their respective jurisdictions. This report highlights the strong potential to improve environmental, economic, and social outcomes for remote and indigenous communities to work toward energy independence through greater deployment of clean technologies. It is also important that these new approaches to encourage clean growth across the country should not result in higher costs for essential goods and services in those remote areas.

It is recognized that the adoption of clean technology can be a tool that will both improve the environment and provide economic opportunities to northern and remote indigenous communities, which can act as agents of change to help guide Canada to a low carbon economy. We also recognize the utmost importance of effective engagement and collaboration with indigenous peoples and communities for this effort to be fruitful.

While work is under way to develop options and measures this fall through the pan-Canadian framework, the federal government is already taking action to seize the economic opportunities of climate change.

Budget 2016 recognized that protecting the environment and growing the economy go hand in hand. It noted that the global clean technology market is growing rapidly, presenting Canadian businesses with an immense opportunity to showcase their ingenuity and support sustainable prosperity for all Canadians.

The commitments included in budget 2016 total almost $2.9 billion over five years to address climate change and air pollution issues. These commitments include $2 billion over two years starting in 2017-18 to establish the low carbon economy fund; $128.8 million over five years starting in 2016-17 to Natural Resources Canada to deliver energy efficiency policies and programs and maintain clean energy policy capacity; and $56.9 million over two years starting in 2016-17 to Transport Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada to support the transition to a cleaner transportation sector, including through the development of regulations and standards for clean transportation technology.

It is well understood that climate change is a threat to Canada's ecosystems, communities, and the economy. Given the seriousness of climate change, action from all sectors of the economy is required, and the shift of businesses decarbonizing their processes and products has already begun.

It is important for Canada to act quickly to enable a smoother transition, allowing businesses to take the best long-term decisions and thrive in a low-carbon economy. One key measure to provide this clear signal to businesses about the path Canada wants to take when it comes to GHG emissions is carbon pricing. Carbon pricing uses the market to drive investments in low-carbon innovations, leading to the development and adoption of clean technologies, energy efficiency, and reduced emissions. It creates financial incentives for consumers and producers to shift consumption and investment decisions to cleaner alternatives, which consequently foster innovation. A national approach to carbon pricing will be a central component to the pan-Canadian framework for clean growth and climate change.

It is clear that there are economic benefits to acting on climate change, and Canada has significant advantages and the expertise it can leverage to capture its share. It can count on some of the best scientists and researchers in the world to find novel solutions. It has a well-educated and highly skilled workforce.

As many countries are moving rapidly to develop and sell clean technologies across the globe, Canada needs to focus its efforts to stay in the game. To successfully compete in the global market while capitalizing on current and future economic opportunities, Canada will need to be strategic in its approach to clean technology development, commercialization, and adoption. This will allow economic growth and environmental preservation to go hand in hand and will allow all Canadians to continue to enjoy a country that is sustainable, prosperous, and innovative.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the contribution by the member opposite to this debate. She did mention carbon pricing. Obviously this is a subject on which few details have been given.

If I were a provincially elected member, I would have questions about the money being collected by Ottawa and then sent back to the provinces. Would there be strings attached to that, linking it to certain pet projects of the government? Would there be GST on top of the so-called carbon tax? These are questions that my constituents have. These are questions whose answers should be known by members of provincial legislative assemblies right across this country. If the member does not know, that is fine, but I do hope that she and her government will be presenting these details in the days to come.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

I was listening to the Prime Minister yesterday when he made it very clear that any money that is raised from carbon pricing will be going back to the provinces. There will be no money received at the federal level that will stay at the federal level.

The Prime Minister made that very clear in his talk yesterday. We know that carbon pricing is the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gases. We know that it will stimulate the innovation in clean growth and the creation of jobs for the middle class. We know it is an important thing to do.

The money is to stay in the provinces where it is generated.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her hard work on the environment file. It is a pleasure working on the committee with her.

The question I would like to put to her is whether she is going to support our subamendment. I know that she has read all the documents. I am sure she has read the Paris agreement. I am sure she is aware of the Vancouver declaration.

However, it is important for the member to recognize, having read those, that both the Paris agreement and the Vancouver declaration, which Canada has signed and is now considering ratifying, say that the parties will commit to engagement of indigenous peoples and the peoples of their country.

What we are debating is the motion put forward by the government. The government has simply said it now wants to ratify. Based on what it has put forward so far, generally speaking, apart from some money in the budget, it is saying that at some time in the future there is going to be carbon tax. However, the motion also says that it only commits to engage provinces and territories.

Does the member think that all members of this place should stand and support our subamendment, which specifically mentions adding the necessity to engage indigenous peoples, municipalities, and the people of Canada, and that we should have a full package of proposals to meet our commitments to two degrees in the Paris agreement?

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank the member for her advocacy work over many years on this file.

It is clear that there is a problem, and we need to lean in and do something about it. It is also clear, as I mentioned in my speech, that all levels of government and all parties in Canada, every single person is going to need to be involved in this movement to a cleaner economy and creating a cleaner environment and future for the country.

I definitely agree with the member opposite that this is not something that just governments are going to be involved in. All business are going to need to be players, and so is the public. We all need to engage with this subject. This is one of the reasons our minister asked for consultation all summer. We have been hearing from people across this country on what they believe we should be doing and what they want to see us doing to ensure a better future for themselves, their children, and grandchildren.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would confirm, as I believe, that indigenous people are in fact a part of the process with the government, working hand in hand on a number of fronts, whether it is the environment or other pressing issues.

We see that in the throne speech, the budget, and in many of the consultations that have been taking place, the many different public meetings, the many one-on-one discussions, and even within cabinet.

Would the member not agree that all people are in fact a part of the dialogue, the great Canadian debate on Canada's environment and the things that we need to do?

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that brings me back to part of the question that was asked that I neglected to answer previously.

Absolutely, 100%, first nations are intimately involved in charting the future for Canada. Reconciliation is one of the very important ways that we are going to move forward. I am on the environment committee, and we have been working on protected spaces, which is not only going to help with biodiversity but also with carbon retainers and carbon sinks for the future, as well as helping to mitigate climate change.

We are working on this file, and we went out specifically to meet with first nations and other groups and businesses, but first nations in particular. First nations have been trying to communicate to us what we should be doing going forward. Up until recently we have not been paying much attention.

We are definitely paying attention now. First nations are very involved with the government through working groups and consultations that we are doing, and in working with us to chart a course forward.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the scientific evidence is unequivocal: the earth's climate is warming.

Climate change is real and Canadians are already feeling its negative effects. Whether it is the increase in the frequency of droughts or coastal flooding, or the accelerated melting of sea ice in the Arctic, the large-scale repercussions of climate change are pushing Canada to take appropriate action.

Previous conclusions are not far-fetched. They are based on an international scientific consensus supported by decades of rigorous scientific analysis and detailed assessments of the state of scientific knowledge about climate change.

Considering that global warming is real and that it is already affecting Canada, perhaps more than other countries, to a considerable extent, it is imperative that we adopt the motion we are debating today, that we continue to work together, and that we call on science to help us face the major challenges that climate change poses for Canada.

Every country in the world emits greenhouse gases that expand throughout the earth's atmosphere, which is why we need concerted global action against climate change. That is the very essence of the Paris agreement, which is based on scientific evidence.

Last December, Canada attended the Paris conference filled with ambition and determination. We worked on an ambitious but balanced agreement. Under this agreement, countries set targets for themselves and report on their progress in a transparent manner. They must also each review and improve their pollution targets every five years.

This agreement is based on sound scientific evidence. Under this extraordinary agreement, each country will take practical measures to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C and limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C.

In order to meet the targets set out in the Paris agreement, the Canadian first ministers agreed to work together to develop a pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change and implement it by 2017. This framework will build on the measures being taken by the provinces and territories, be supported by an extensive engagement effort by indigenous people and Canadians, and be guided by facts and science.

In support of this pan-Canadian framework for clean growth and climate change, Canada has established four working groups, with its provincial, territorial, and indigenous partners, in order to take measures to reduce emissions and meet our commitments. We look forward to these four reports being released later on this fall.

Let us be clear. The people of Pontiac and I appreciate the Prime Minister's leadership on pricing carbon pollution. Canada is determined to build a cleaner and more innovative economy where there are fewer greenhouse gas emissions, the environment is protected, and high-paying jobs are created for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

We cannot afford not to act. The former national round table on the environment and economy, which was killed by the former government, estimated in 2011 that the economy-wide cost to Canada of climate change will accelerate, rising from an average value of $5 billion in 2020 to between $21 billion and $43 billion by 2050. The round table found that the average cost by 2050 would amount to roughly .8% to 1% of GDP. It found that in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Montreal, climate change will result in additional deaths from heat and pollution in the order of 3 to 6 deaths per 100,000 people per year in the 2020s. This impact will worsen in future decades. The risks of flooding are clear. As many as 16,000 to 28,000 dwellings will be at permanent risk of flooding. Therefore, the economic costs could be in the trillions of dollars.

This is why our insurance rates are going up, and Canadians know this. Canadians are already paying.

A 2015 study by the Insurance Bureau of Canada found that the direct and indirect impacts of weather effects of climate change on our communities will be great. For example, the cumulative estimated cost of weather effects in Mississauga from freezing rain attributed to climate change could reach over $30 million by 2040. An extreme climate event, such as a 1-in-25-year freezing rain event occurring in 2040 will be estimated to cost as much as $15.7 million.

However, the costs go beyond freezing rain and flooding. They go to the very heart of what it means to be Canadian.

Let us talk about outdoor rinks. A 2014 study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, found that as a result of weather changes from climate change, we will not be able to skate on outdoor rinks as long as we have done previously. On average, the availability of outdoor rinks will decline by about three to four days per decade through 2090. This means that the Rideau Canal here in the national capital region will be available an average of 40 days in the 2040 horizon, but as few as 15 days in 2090. That is down an average of 50 days from the 1972 to 2013 period.

I want my two children to enjoy the opportunity to skate on ponds and play hockey, and I want their grandchildren to have that same opportunity. The people across Canada and the people in Pontiac demand action. For 10 years, they have seen the federal government fiddle while the world burns.

We all know that the time for talk has passed. It is time for action. It is urgent that we take steps to reduce emissions, reduce the impact of pollution on our health, and reduce our environmental footprint. We have to help developing countries transition to a cleaner energy future. We have to help Canadian communities adapt to the inevitable reality of climate change.

Canada needs a price on carbon. It may be a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system, or a combination. Ultimately, it does not matter as long as there is a price on carbon. As long as it is coordinated, it will be in the best interest of Canada's environment and our economy.

However, a price on carbon alone will be insufficient to meet our targets. We need performance-based standards and regulations. This has to be conceived as a human rights issue. It is not just an economic issue. It is not just an environmental issue. It is about human rights.

Climate change poses a serious threat to any number of human rights, including the right to life, water and sanitation, food, health, culture, development, and a healthy environment.

Recognizing the impact on human rights, the parties agreed to a more ambitious target for the Paris agreement. The preamble to the Paris agreement clearly states the following:

...Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights...

Yes, ratifying the Paris agreement has human rights implications, but it is also an incredible opportunity. Canada can and must create green, clean-energy jobs.

By continuing to invest through our infrastructure funds and through our innovation funds, we need to accelerate the elimination of carbon in our economy. We can create a better future for all Canadians in so doing.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated listening to the member, which brought some questions to my mind.

The member said that we cannot afford not to act and that there are disasters that are happening across Canada, which is true. However, has the member thought through how many of those disasters are a result of Canada's emissions versus emissions from larger places, like China, India, and the United States, who are all part of this agreement as well? We have said that we have this huge responsibility within Canada. I would ask the member where the balance is.

In my home province of Saskatchewan, we are carbon sequestering with our coal plants. The minister was there, and it is phenomenal what they are willingly doing. Our southern Saskatchewan ranchers are self-regulated, choosing between environmental methods of protecting the environment for their pasture land, and choosing to do that independently. Our agriculture boasts zero tillage, improved environmental performance on machinery, and we are retrofitting and building homes. We built our own in 1985. Our forest and park systems include and make us, the province of Saskatchewan, carbon neutral, or a negative carbon producing province.

My question to the member is: When he sees what we are are doing as a country and the new relationship with the Government of China, what are the expectations in regard to this? The member spoke of human rights in regard to the climate. Should our government not be making some demands—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Time is limited and we will try to get at least one more question in.

The hon. member for Pontiac.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this is a national debate. The voices of the provinces must be heard, and they are being heard. This is a great debate for us to continue to have.

Looking internationally, we need to be honest. This is not about Canada getting away with doing less because other countries emit more. Obviously, the United States and China are the world's two biggest economies and the world's two biggest emitters. However, that does not mean they are not doing their part; they are.

President Obama said that he would adopt “an all-of-the-above strategy”. He is working closely with Minister McKenna and the Prime Minister to ensure a continental approach to reducing our emissions so it is most economically efficient and we meet our global targets, which we have agreed to with China, the United State, and all our international partners.

I do not think that at this point in time it can be said, as it was said for so many years under the previous government, that there is international disagreement. There is not. The Paris accord demonstrates it. The science is clear. Now it is time to act. Yes, provinces across the country are taking measures, and I congratulate them for those measures. I congratulate the Government of Saskatchewan for its sequestration work, but it needs to do more, and so it will as will the rest of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Pontiac for his presentation.

My colleague from Edmonton Strathcona asked the member for King—Vaughan a very clear question, but she refused to answer it. I would like to come back to that because, as a lawyer, the member for Pontiac must know that the wording of a motion is important.

The NDP noticed that indigenous peoples were not mentioned in the motion. That is why we proposed this subamendment to include indigenous peoples in the equation in today's debate.

The question was very simple and requires only a yes or no answer: will the member for Pontiac support the NDP's subamendment?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the Government of Canada has been consulting and negotiating directly with indigenous peoples from coast to coast to coast for many months now. Inuit peoples, first nations, and other indigenous populations have been participating in these talks, which have been taking place as part of a pan-Canadian strategy currently being negotiated with the provinces, with the four working groups.

It is crucial that they be part of the solution. I believe that the Government of Canada has a duty to ensure that those discussions are worthy of the crown. Our Minister of Environment, Ms. McKenna, will continue this dialogue.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, in the last half hour there have been a couple of references to the use of members' names as opposed to their titles or ridings. I would remind hon. members to try to get into the third-person way of speaking and to also refrain from using the names of other hon. members.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

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

Before I start my speech, I was interested in my Liberal colleague across the way saying that the Liberals wanted to eliminate carbon from our economy. It shows a lack of science understanding on the other side. I would suggest to him that he should look up the photosynthesis equation, which is the most important equation on earth, and the first element is carbon dioxide.

I rise in the House to speak to the proposed ratification of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change dealing with greenhouse emissions mitigation, adaptation, and finance starting in the year 2020, better known as the Paris agreement.

The motion before us can be supported in one sense, but is significantly improved by our amendment to ensure we do not encroach on provincial and territorial responsibilities, and we must not raise taxes on Canadians. Therefore, I would support the motion as amended. However, it seems clear that the Prime Minister has no intention of seeking consent from or co-operating with the provinces in this regard.

Aside from the actual content of the agreement, what most Canadians will likely remember best from Paris is the return of Liberal excess and entitlement. the great junket cost taxpayers nearly $1 million. Canadians will also remember going forward that this is the agreement that the Liberals believe gave them the right to unilaterally impose a carbon tax on them.

That aside, we recognize that Canada must do its part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but not at the expense of seriously harming our own economy. I would also mention it is good to see that the Liberal government has adopted the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target set by our previous Conservative government, but it is how we get there that matters most.

I am very proud to represent the vast rural constituency of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa in west central Manitoba. My riding is primarily agricultural and, in addition to producing grains and oilseeds, my riding is the largest producer of canola in the entire country. Our land supports thriving cattle and hog industries, and commercial forestry which supports many jobs in the northern region. My constituency is also blessed with vast tracts of natural habitats and numerous lakes that support hunting, angling and trapping, activities that are critical to our way of life and our thriving tourism industry.

My constituents have a deep commitment to conservation. They live with and among a beautiful environment with wildlife and there are dozens of wildlife and fisheries conservation organizations supporting many fish and wildlife enhancement projects every year. This is the kind of environmental conservation that does not get the recognition it deserves: good, honest people on the land doing good, honest conservation work that benefits the entire country. I am very proud to represent those people in my constituency.

As an example, wetlands are critical to my riding and to environmental conservation across the country. By way of example, many Canadians may not know that just one acre of wetlands gained or restored equates to roughly a full year of carbon emissions from 160 cars on the road. We never hear anything about landscape conservation from the Liberal government when it comes to climate change, although it is equally or more important than much of the activities it is proposing. Partnering with groups that promote wetlands conservation and restoration does far more than targets and frameworks.

However, by focusing so much on carbon emission reductions, the Liberal government is ignoring this very significant environmental opportunity and it is a major opportunity.

Aside from wetlands effectively sequestering carbon, they also purify water, conserve biodiversity and improve flood control. Our Conservative government, through our national conservation plan, supported significant wetlands and other habitat conservation programs that delivered multiple benefits for the same cost. I would urge the government to do the same.

Interestingly in the previous Parliament, the environment committee that I was a part of did a major study on Great Lakes water quality and the loss of wetlands around the Great Lakes was implicated in the decline of water quality in Lake Erie in particular.

Again, the government has an opportunity to spend money efficiently and deliver multiple benefits, and I am using wetlands conservation as an example, and in the case of the Great Lakes, improve Great Lakes water quality and sequester carbon and conserve biodiversity at the same time.

Now that is Conservative-style environmentalism. I know the Liberals are not really familiar with efficient conservation that delivers real benefits, but I would urge them to adopt that kind of conservation.

This is not to say that projects to expand wetlands to protect wildlife habitats are the only options when it comes to reaching environmental targets. However, we must avoid having our sole focus on mandating compliance and regulating businesses out of existence. There are many technological advances that have and will continue to be made to limit emissions and ensure sustainable development.

I wholeheartedly support advancements in clean technology development and innovation, especially in Canada's national resources and renewable energy sectors. However, government programs must deliver concrete and measurable results for businesses and the environment, and the key word being “measurable”.

Surely, it is not just the Conservatives who recognize that governments are notoriously bad at picking winners. We must not subsidize using taxpayer money in the hopes of innovating in these areas if it is not economically viable. Governments can play a role in investing and incentivizing to create a climate for investment, but we must not lose focus on what matters most, actual and real results for environmental dollars spent.

My riding is one that would be tremendously impacted by any federally-imposed carbon tax. How the Liberals cannot realize that a carbon tax will disproportionately hurt Canadians living in rural and remote areas is beyond me. How it will hurt agriculture is obvious. It takes a lot of energy to produce the food to feed our country, and the world. As one farmer said humorously, a Prius cannot pull an air seeder.

Farmers who are already working within margins can ill-afford to have the tax burden on their businesses and families increased. The fact is that people in rural areas will drive places even if a carbon tax is imposed on them. My constituents will not stop driving their children to school or sporting events. They will not stop going camping in our beautiful wilderness and national parks. They simply will not stop living. However, what they will do is end up paying more to the government coffers, with no beneficial effects on the environment. The Liberals are better off to give the carbon tax money to the conservation groups in my constituency that will do real good for the environment.

Where we live, we do not have mass transit. We cannot bike 30 kilometres every day to go to work. Many of my constituents live on modest incomes, and they will be deeply affected by these taxes.

As verified by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy in its report on a carbon pricing policy for Canada, and I happened to have been a member of the national round table at that time, “Given income constraints, lower-income households are also less able to adjust their behaviour and spend on technology or energy efficiency measures in response to a price.” In other words, poor people will be hurt the most.

It is clear that the Conservative Party of Canada is the party of the working people. The people in my constituency and all of our constituencies exemplify that. The fact is that the Liberals need to realize that all they are doing is hurting the good, hard-working people who live in rural and remote parts of our country.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates that a new carbon tax could result in the average Canadian family paying $2,500 more in new taxes per year. According to the PBO, Canadian incomes will decline 1% to 3% on average thanks to the Paris agreement. These findings are in addition to the tax hikes the Liberals have proposed.

The fact is that countries that implement policies to spur wealth creation generate the best environmental outcomes. To phrase it simply, getting rich is good for the environment, and the math proves that. Our environmental quality in Canada is the result of wealth creation policies, largely put in by Conservative governments, I might add. Increasing taxes on Canadians while their economies struggle is simply irresponsible.

It is also unfortunate that too many advocates of climate change mitigation like this fail to actually do the math on the environmental effects and get lost in their ideological beliefs. Take for example the Liberal steadfast support of wind energy. Advocates have also failed to mention that wind turbines can have negative effects on the environment and wildlife, not to mention local communities.

For example, one study concludes that of all wind energy facilities, about 368,000 bird fatalities occur every year. These things are Cuisinarts for birds and bats. It is also important to note that many of the bird species killed by wind turbines are SARA-listed species, and endangered bats are also victims of wind turbines.

In 2014, Australia abolished its carbon tax after it was proven harmful. The Ontario Liberal government has accepted its green energy failures.

I hope the Liberals will heed these warnings and adapt their means of achieving these targets away from taxation and regulations and toward partnerships with on-the-ground organizations and incentives for Canadian businesses and families. This is the key to both our continued wealth creation and sustainable economic growth and environmental protection.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague started out strong with his speech, it dipped a bit in the middle, and then I did not understand most of the end of it. However, I want to go back to a couple of points he made.

Let us start where he left off. He said the Canadian Taxpayers Federation apparently ostensibly has hard numbers about the costs of complying with this putting a price on carbon plan that we tabled yesterday. First, I would like to ask if the member is prepared to go back to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and ask its members a different question. Can they tell the Canadian people what the costs will be on the average household if we do not take action on climate change? Let us flip this around. Let us stop pretending that there will not be consequential costs flowing from climate change effects in Canadian society.

Second, the member did refer to the use and the importance of the planet's wetlands. Canada possesses about one-quarter of the planet's wetlands. The member and I both know that, because for 10 years I was the president and CEO of the national round table that he referred to.

However, here is something that we did do as a Liberal administration. We created a system of national accounts at Stats Canada to track the important things like the extent of wetlands in Canada, to know how much we actually have and to move toward putting a value on the perfect and free water and air infiltration systems they provide. However, the previous government shut down that unit at Stats Canada. Is he prepared to resurrect that, to have us do that, so we can help his constituents understand the integral role wetlands can play in sequestering carbon?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am astonished at that Liberal arrogance. To assume my constituents do not know the value of wetlands is deeply insulting. My farm has nine wetland areas on it. There are thousands and thousands of wetlands in my region. My people know what wetlands mean.

The difference between a Conservative and a Liberal is this. Measurement is important, but the Liberal thinks measurement is the be all and end all. We put money into actual programming through the national conservation plan. By the way, I should point out that back in 1986, the Brian Mulroney government started the North American waterfowl management plan, which continues to this day, and is the single-largest wetlands conservation program in the history of the world. We need no lectures on the value of the wetlands from a Liberal.

In terms of the member's first question, again Canada produces 1.6% of world CO₂ emissions. We will do our part, but again the whole world has to act together to make a difference. Again, Canada's 1.6% is Canada's 1.6%.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the Liberals could put our hon. colleague on the road as exhibit A of the problem with the Conservative viewpoint. I remember when the Conservatives used to get up and say there was no such thing as climate change, that it was dinosaur flatulence that caused this. Now what we are hearing is that he has a wetland in his riding so what else do we need to do.

I will say that I have a wetland right behind me, and 100 years later there are still lots of birds but we cannot fish in there because it is poisoned with cyanide and arsenic, because the mining industry at the time thought the easiest way was just to dump. If we had asked them to fix up the environment back then, they would have all screamed that they would all be out of business.

All our northern lakes were destroyed by Inco. What did Inco do? It was not voluntary. Inco managers never fixed it up because they thought it was good to help. No, the capitalist economy was legislated to change it. Guess what happened? They became more efficient and they are making lots of money.

There is the idea that somehow if we ever force industry to do anything it is an absolute threat, when in fact industries have gotten away decade after decade with polluting the atmosphere and not paying. This comes from a region full of resource communities that know. Our communities have lived with that environmental impact, so we are not flat-earthers like my hon. colleague. We actually believe that legislation is needed to make these guys live up to their obligations.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of flatulence.

I used to be the environmental director at a paper mill, and in1989 the Brian Mulroney government, a Conservative government, implemented the pulp and paper effluent regulations. There is a place for regulations and there is a place for incentives. Regulations work in the case of point-source pollution. In the case of paper mills, the pulp and paper effluent regulations in 1989 forced all the companies, my own included, to spend $25 million on waste-water treatment plants. In some cases, regulations work.

I have been to Sudbury. I have met people there. I have seen the Sudbury miracle, so regulations work in some cases. In other cases, incentives work. When we try to regulate where incentives are the most appropriate, it simply will not generate any environmental benefits.

For my friend opposite, the New Democrats want all industry, pipelines, resources, and everybody shut down for some strange reason. I guess it is from the Leap Manifesto.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand today to speak to the Paris agreement, which was completed in December 2015.

Paris is a great city. It is known as the city of light, a city with a long and exciting history, one filled with many events that helped define global politics and power to this day. There has been a direct connection to North America in these agreements. First, there was the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1763, which is very important to the British North American colonies, which became the Canada we know today. It was important because it ceded all remaining French territory in North America to other powers, mostly Great Britain.

Then there was the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which led to the end of hostilities between the United States of America and Great Britain after the Americans were victorious in the American revolution. Then there was the Treaty of Paris of 1815, which marked the end of the Napoleonic wars in Europe for the second and final time, thankfully. Then in 1898 there was another Treaty of Paris, which when signed led to the dissolution of the remnants of the Spanish Empire and the end of the Spanish-American war. More recently, in 1973, the Paris Peace Accords occurred, which led to the end of the war in Vietnam. It seemed to take as long to decide the shape of the table to negotiate the agreement as it took to complete that accord.

That leads us to 2015, where a different kind of conference took place. That would be the Paris agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Canada had a delegation present, including the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, our party's environment critic, the hon. member for Abbotsford, as well as many other officials. The result of the conference was an agreement reached about the climate change priorities of 191 member states. This is a major agreement and it certainly could have short-, medium-, and long-term implications for Canada, indeed, the entire world.

The modern world in which we live is all about how humans can adapt to challenges that are thrown our way. That is why I believe that mitigation, adaptation, and adaptability will be the most important parts of what we discuss here in Parliament with respect to the Paris agreement.

We know that climate change has occurred and it is continuing to occur. What we decide to do about it and the approach we take to tackle these issues is what is important here today. Humans and mother nature combine to create challenges. One explosion of a major volcano and there is a huge effect on the atmosphere. We cannot control mother nature. Usually when we think we can or attempt to do so, we get a rude wake-up call.

However, we can work with the decisions human beings make on this planet. I believe there is a difference in philosophies between the parties in the House about the best way to tackle the climate change issue we face. I believe that there are a great number of adaptation techniques that are currently being applied that are helping us deal with climate change.

For example, we are on the precipice of some very advanced, clean coal technology, which may allow us to re-examine the use of clean coal in some parts of the world, including parts of Canada. I want to be clear that we are not talking about the dirty soot-spewing coal of production in the past, but a much cleaner and modern alternative. That is one example of adaptability.

Windmills are interesting and an increasing power source, but it is taking more and more coal mining to make the steel to make the blades than ever before. Where is that happening? Not in the added-value economies of Canada. That whole production process has some environmental drawbacks.

I believe that there are other power sources. We had the stuff for decades and we will now more likely to be able to focus on it. For example, what about harnessing the tidal power of the Bay of Fundy?

Being an older guy, I know the history of technical advances in Fort McMurray, for example. I first witnessed this process in 1974, and more recently, just a few years ago. Incredible technologies have changed the process since the first plant was built in 1966.

If we go millions of years back in history, we could find ourselves in the Mesozoic era where dinosaurs ran free across the earth. No, I am not a dinosaur. I was not there. The poor dinosaurs could not adapt as well, as we know. Their species became extinct. In fact, not to digress, but the heartland of Canada's dinosaur deposits were discovered over 100 years ago in my constituency, in the UNESCO World Heritage Dinosaur Provincial Park.

The dinosaurs are gone and we humans have to innovate to make sure that we survive the climate change challenges we face. I think the House sees that we are making great strides in terms of technology and expertise right here in our own backyards, right here in Canada. If we are looking at places where we can use money to leverage expertise and resources, I believe the best place we can spend that money would be right here in Canada.

We have the expertise. There are many highly educated, motivated, and innovative citizens. On the issue of climate change, we could really lead the world in developing new climate change mitigation and adaptation technologies and strategies. If the government plans on spending money, let us do it here so we can give Canada a boost, and then lead the rest of the world.

The environmental issues my constituents and all Canadians face would be best tackled by people in their communities. It is my desire that the Paris agreement confirm the ability of our communities, constituencies, and regions to make decisions about how to adapt and mitigate the effects of climate change. Municipalities have been leading the way for many years.

Industries, such as agriculture in my riding, have developed techniques that reduce the carbon footprint. There are innovative businesses in communities right across the country that are ready to be part of the solution. CCR Technologies, from Brooks, in my riding, is an innovative business. It is a great example of local companies making a difference in the world, and recently at Boundary Dam in Saskatchewan. It is working on some very interesting projects we have heard about.

The right approach is to support Canadian industries, domestic companies that are working on innovative clean technology solutions that can be world class.

With this in mind, our party will support the first part of the motion, which agrees with the spirit of the Paris agreement. What we do have an issue with is the second part of the motion, which relates to the Vancouver declaration. It is problematic. I have concerns when the federal government uses its powers to encroach upon the rights of the provinces to deliver their own climate change plan. It is very important for legislators and decision-makers from all levels of government to respect each other's jurisdictions. Our party has some concerns with respect to interfering with provincial affairs. That is one of the reasons that our side is proposing an amendment to the second part of today's Liberal motion.

We do indeed support a strategy to deal with climate change. We believe it is important for all Canadians to have a stake in the solution and that a broad, science-based, market-based solution to climate change strikes the right balance for any strategy. Adding more to the tax burden of tapped-out Canadians is an approach we cannot support, which is one of the reasons we are offering an amendment.

Another issue I have some concerns with is applying a one-size-fits-all solution that would potentially meddle in provincial affairs and put some provincial governments in an impossible situation. It could also unfairly affect certain parts of Canada.

I have some specific concerns about how supporting the Vancouver declaration could impact northern and Arctic communities. This is one of the reasons why many of the northern territories legislators came out firmly against a one-size-fits-all approach. They are watching the sea ice and permafrost conditions up close and first hand.

It is critical that we strike the right balance. We believe that a strong economy, along with robust environmental policies, is the correct course of action. We also believe that these two concepts are by no means mutually exclusive, but can go hand in hand.

Unfortunately, we have forgotten some of the tried, tested, cultural, and science-based climate mitigation strategies that do not require billions of dollars when practised effectively. I speak of some of the wetland and boreal forest conservation that can be very beneficial to ecosystems and the environment.

Last week, for instance, I met with the Ducks Unlimited people. They were talking about a lot of excellent conservation projects that they work on across Canada. I have visited some of those in my own constituency. People often forget that a major part of Ducks Unlimited's mandate is conservation and the members of Ducks Unlimited, at least in my area, tend to be ranchers and other land users. These people are experts at conservation by design. They have a vested interest in making sure that conservation is always a top priority in their daily activities.

Indigenous people from the Prairies understood the value of forest fires in the regeneration of a varieties of plants and ecosystems. In recent years, national parks have begun to replicate this understood cultural and environmentally positive practice with controlled burns in parks.

Too much of the debate is centred around the desire to spend a lot of taxpayers' money on projects that do not deliver any benefit but are more or less feel-good projects. I would much favour environmental strategies that focus on tangible results, such as funding conservation priorities and by working with organizations like Ducks Unlimited to achieve our common goals.

We are happy to support the first part of the Liberal motion and offer an amendment to the second part.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is refreshing to hear the member for Bow River speak to the reality and severity of the issue of climate change.

I agree he is not a Conservative dinosaur. In fact, I have gotten to know him quite a bit more over the past several weeks and appreciate tremendously what he brings to the House and to the issues of climate change and conservation more broadly for the entire country. I also appreciate that he has focused on innovative businesses.

I would like to get his sense of the following comments by Canadian business leaders. Suncor, to take an example, has stated, “We support a broad-based price on carbon as an important tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the fight against climate change”. Shell Canada's president, Michael Crothers, has stated that “balancing Canadian economic development while protecting the environment will be enabled by a reasonable price on carbon”. Finally, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, has said that “A national carbon price moves Canada into a global leader on climate. Now, we need to balance with the growth of our economy economy”.

Would the member opposite react to these remarks by Canada's energy industry?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment my colleague across the floor for his strong beliefs and his work in this field and how he brings that to our committee. We have learned much about his background and his interests in this area. Indeed, we can all gain by learning from each other in the House.

It is interesting that in my part of the world, we find that the major corporations, the CEOs, the presidents, and the owners of majors will say this, yet they are also the companies that are cutting back and releasing a lot of staff. A lot of their employees no longer work. These are the people I see in my communities, where the innovation that has been mentioned has not created jobs for them. They are unemployed; they are on EI. These are the ones in my community, at the grassroots levels, from these companies, who are not seeing the benefits.

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

Mr. Speaker, everyone wants to help the planet. However, Canada accounts for less than 2% of the world's footprint; therefore, reducing our footprint, alone, will not serve to reduce global warming. China, India, the U.S., and the U.K. make up 60% of the footprint. China has no carbon tax and is still building coal plants. The U.S. has no carbon tax.

I wonder if the member would comment further on what I believe is the right solution: leveraging Canada's carbon emission reduction technology for the substantive contributors so they can create Canadian jobs and help the planet?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, we have people in the House who bring such intelligent and educated backgrounds to help us all learn about these things. That member is one of those people.

Bringing a balanced approach to how we can address this is critically important. I have always believed that a little bit of honey makes things happen a lot quicker than a big stick beating people. Through my career, I have seen a tremendous amount of innovation result when people work together and collaborate. The big stick just does not work. I would agree with the member that we need more of those positive incentives, more of that working together, more of that collaboration. We have phenomenal people in this country who can accomplish that, who will do it with the right incentives and environment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate.

Before we recognize the hon. member for Ottawa South, I will let him know that we do not quite have the full 10 minutes before the interruption that will come at 2 p.m., but he can at least get started and he will have the remaining time, of course, after question period and members' statements.