Debates of Oct. 5th, 2016

Paris Agreement

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I would like to provide some background, if I may, so that everyone understands where we are coming from.

The Kyoto protocol used 1990 as the reference year so that meaningful action would be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Conservatives, however, decided to use 2005 as the reference year, which was a huge step backwards, and their targets were weak to begin with: a 30% reduction by 2030.

When the Liberals went to Paris, they said they would be much more ambitious than the Conservatives. They even wanted to limit the maximum global temperature increase to 1.5°C, which is a very good thing, I might add.

However, when it comes time to actually do something, where are the concrete measures to begin the shift towards green energy and to create jobs in a low-carbon economy?

Would my colleague agree that the Liberal is not what could be considered a real, practical plan to combat climate change?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have always taken the approach that a global problem requires a global solution. Canada was among the first countries to take a strong stand on the fact that for a climate change agreement to work, it had to include the world's largest emitters, and it required a plan. The Liberal government signed Kyoto without ever having a plan or the political will to meet its objectives. It demonstrated that again this week when it introduced its unilateral carbon tax.

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

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

Because climate change is the challenge of our time, I stand in support of ratifying the Paris agreement. Here is why action is so badly needed. Climate change impacts are already being felt in my riding. We already see hotter water harming chum, chinook, and coho salmon returns on the Englishman, Cowichan, and Nanaimo rivers and at Mill Creek. Salmon are also harmed by drier rivers resulting from reduced snow pack.

Two decades of pine beetle infestation in our province have led to dozens of mill closures and tens of thousands of job losses. Ocean acidity has increased 30% and is expected to increase up to 150% by the end of the century. Worldwide, since 1975, oceans have absorbed 90% of the excess heat from global climate change.

This has already had big economic costs for us. B.C.'s $2.2 billion fishery and aquaculture sector, with its 14,000 jobs, is at risk. Worldwide, fisheries stand to lose $10 billion of their annual revenue. Climate-change-caused ocean acidification killed 10 million scallops just north of my riding. That was three years' worth of production, and the CEO of Island Scallops Ltd. said:

I'm not sure we are going to stay alive and I'm not sure the oyster industry is going to stay alive.

Power generation is affected too. In 2009, we saw the lowest water inflows in 46 years at Vancouver Island power plants.

Forest fires cost British Columbia $877 million over the last five years.

Drought, disease, and pests threaten food security on Vancouver Island, which already imports 95% of its food.

The good news is that acting on global climate change can boost small business and good local jobs. Climate action is a win-win for our local economy and our global environment. We are already innovating and cutting greenhouse gas emissions in my riding and are adding good-paying, sustainable jobs.

Nanaimo Harmac Pacific mill is energy efficient and uses biofuels, including wood waste, to generate 55 megawatts of power.

The Greater Nanaimo Pollution Control Centre captures methane to convert to electricity, and it is powering 300 homes.

Nanaimo is home to Canadian Electric Vehicles, which for 25 years has been making industrial vehicles, from electric trucks to Zambonis to electric bobcats.

Two groups are right now building energy conservation affordable housing in Nanaimo. Low energy use equal low operating costs equals greater affordability.

Vancouver Island University carpentry students dedicated 5,000 hours of volunteer time to building Habitat for Humanity's most recent build.

Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre is building affordable housing right now using passive energy designs, which use 80% less power than normal.

This is good news countrywide. Canada's green-building sector has $128 billion in gross annual output, and it employs more direct full-time workers than the forestry, mining, and oil and gas industries combined. We need our government to support local initiatives and remove barriers to innovation right here at home.

We have the know-how here in our communities. We want climate leadership that supports, and does not impede, cutting greenhouse gas emissions right here on our coast.

I talked with Nanaimo renewable energy entrepreneurs at the Vancouver Island Economic Alliance Summit a few years back. They said that the Harper government and our B.C. government put up more barriers to their industry than anywhere they know in the world. They are both manufacturing and selling outside our community and outside our province. That is a lose-lose for the environment and the economy.

Canada cannot afford to stand on the sidelines when it comes to tackling climate change and transitioning to a cleaner, greener economy. With 50,000 people employed directly in more than 800 clean-tech firms, Canada could be a global leader, but it needs federal government financing and policy support.

It is time we had a truly balanced, sustainable approach to developing our energy resources in Canada. This means creating lasting, sustainable prosperity while making Canada a global leader in the clean technology sector of tomorrow.

The bad news is that it feels as if the Liberals are repeating their old pattern of breaking promises. In the early 90s, I was involved through the environmental NGO community with a group called the Economic Instruments Collaborative. We were working with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, TransAlta, and Lafarge cement. These were the biggest polluters in Canada. We were working together to try to design economic instruments to deal with air quality problems, one of which was global climate change. The Liberals at that time had been elected in 1993 on a platform to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2005. Instead, the Liberals ignored the collaborative regulatory design on which we had worked together and had achieved this amazing consensus between disparate groups. They chose not to implement that. Instead, emissions increased by over 30%. By 2005, to our shame, the United Nations reported Canada's pollution had increased more than any other signatory to Kyoto.

Therefore, while the New Democrats support the ratification of the Paris agreement, we are concerned that the Liberals have shown no plan and no real effort toward achieving its targets.

Canadians elected the Liberal government on the promise to establish national emission-reduction targets. That was in the Liberals' platform. Now in government, they are backtracking to what they used to call “catastrophic” Harper targets, and Canada is still without a national greenhouse gas reduction plan. All spring, Liberals in the House kept telling us we have committees. However, committees do not reduce emissions.

Carbon pricing will not guarantee a greenhouse gas reduction either, and it will not meet the Paris targets. Carbon pricing without emission reductions leaves it to the market to decide how much pollution we get; and leaving it to the market is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Conservatives compounded the mess. There is no question. They disgracefully put Canada on the climate fossil map, as the first signatory to withdraw from Kyoto. They defunded the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, a group we sorely need right now. They failed to monitor or regulate emissions from the fossil fuel industry. Also, they continued to give their corporate fossil friends billions in annual tax breaks.

Liberal decisions are not looking very climate friendly right now either. Approving the Pacific NorthWest liquid natural gas project is inconsistent with the federal government's commitment to lead on climate change and clean innovation. At 10 million tonnes, it will be one of the largest carbon polluters in the country. There was no meaningful consultation and accommodation with indigenous communities. That feels to us like the Site C dam problem as well. This summer, at the site of the proposed dam, indigenous leaders showed me B.C. Hydro pulverizing old growth forests and mulching a carbon sink during reservoir preparation, and this is all to power further fossil fuel production. It is an embarrassment for us.

We are looking for real climate action. We are looking for ratification of the Paris accord, but we need regulation, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and support for innovation to create sustainable jobs.

As legislators in the House, we have a sacred duty to future generations, to the people, to the animals, to make it right for our planet, and for the first time in Canadian history, to actually lead on climate change.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we witnessed this week started off with the Prime Minister indicating very clearly to all Canadians that the government is listening and understands that, to move forward, we need to act on our environment and take the economy into consideration. The Paris agreement and many discussions that have taken place with our provincial and territorial leaders, indigenous peoples, and so many others, have ultimately led to what the Prime Minister introduced to the House.

Carbon taxing of pollution has been taking place in many other jurisdictions, including here in Canada today. Does the New Democratic Party have a position on what sort of price it would like to see when it comes to a carbon taxing policy on pollution?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member was in the House the three times that New Democrats brought climate change legislation to the House. Twice it was passed in the House, and one time it was stopped in the Senate.

The member knows our commitment to actual, measurable, enforceable emission reductions that would help climate change. I do not think either of the parties across the House, whether New Democrat or Liberal, believes that a price on carbon alone will deal produce the reductions we need. We are in trouble in this country, coastal communities especially. We need emission reductions fast, and we need the government to take strong leadership.

As the member knows, it was a cap-and-trade program on which we campaigned. I was very involved with the success of cap and trade in reducing emissions causing acid rain. We know that it works to get emissions down to a reliable, measurable level, but it also gives industry the flexibility to work together. That is a way to price carbon while ratcheting emissions down. Until we see the government's plan to actually act on emission reductions, we will continue to ask these questions in the House.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as an ecologist I am quite familiar with a lot of the predictions and projections around the increase in climate change over the next few decades. One of the clearest projections in British Columbia especially, as my colleague mentioned, was the warming of our rivers. Just last year in my riding in the Okanagan Valley we were predicted to get a record run of sockeye salmon, over 400,000 fish. Almost all of them—all but 10,000—died in the pools of the Columbia River because the water was too warm.

We hear a lot on the price of action, especially from the Conservatives. I want to know what the price of inaction is, especially with regard to salmon.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I share a salmon connection—I on the coast and my colleague in the interior. This is such a valuable industry for our province. Our province was built on salmon. We are salmon people and we have a very strong commitment around the indigenous relationship in British Columbia to stand up in every way we can for salmon. This is a 100% federal responsibility.

Sockeye salmon at our latitude, which are already at their southern range, are threatened with extinction by 2050, and maybe all species of salmon, beyond sockeye, by 2100. It would be a disaster economically and environmentally. We cannot let that happen.

What is happening is that, as rivers get hotter, the salmon either cannot go up to spawn, or else they wait in the hope for cooler water at which point they get preyed on by seals and other animals.

When we lose our salmon population, not only are there human impacts, but the endangered orca whale that is resident in the southern Strait of Georgia, also known as the Salish Sea, is losing its primary food. Therefore we have a commitment as the federal government, a deep responsibility to protect the Chinook salmon on which the endangered orca rely. It is a mammal identified as a species at risk, and we have a strong responsibility to act. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the best way for us to do that.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I support the ratification of the Paris agreement. I support aggressive action to cut carbon pollution and to create clean energy jobs. In fact, I ran to represent Victoria here in Parliament, in large part, because I just could not stand on the sidelines any longer, as the Conservative government drove our country further down the road toward the enormous economic, social, and environmental costs of climate change.

Never before has one generation handed such a hefty bill to the next. We owe it to young Canadians to do everything in our power to reduce that bill. The next generation deserves a healthy environment and a prosperous, resilient, sustainable low-carbon economy.

I am proud to support the ratification of the Paris agreement, but I fear that the targets now shared by the Liberals and the Conservatives, as well as the recent decisions of the government with regard to Site C and the Pacific NorthWest LNG proposal, are simply inconsistent with our obligations to that international agreement, to indigenous peoples, and to young Canadians, who will bear the burden of our inaction.

We meet today as the people of Haiti are digging out from the destruction of yet another hurricane, Hurricane Matthew, and millions of Americans are evacuating their homes on the eastern seaboard as the storm approaches. In Florida, a state of emergency has been declared. Families are stocking up on gasoline and bottled water, and shop owners are boarding up their businesses as we speak today.

This is just one storm, but it illustrates a trend Canadians are seeing across our country and around the globe. A changing climate is bringing more extreme weather, more ice and wind storms, more fires, and more floods. The Calgary floods, for example, cost Canadians $6 billion, and only a third of that was covered by insurance, leaving families and governments to pick up the tab. The Fort McMurray fire destroyed 2,400 homes and became the costliest disaster that insurers in Canada have ever seen.

Canadians know that climate change is not coming; it is here. If we do not take aggressive action, the costs are just going to keep climbing. The Liberals' plan to go back to Stephen Harper's plan, Stephen Harper's targets, and Stephen Harper's timeline is deeply disappointing to my community in Victoria and, indeed, to many Canadians who care deeply about the future of our planet.

Five years ago, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy wrote a major report. It forecast that climate change will cost Canadians $5 billion each year by 2020. That is about the cost of the Calgary floods each year.

We owe it to look down the road, not look at the short-term vista only, and to think about what we are doing to our children's and grandchildren's futures. I had the opportunity to meet last night with David Suzuki to talk about the carbon pricing that the Liberals have put on the table, and I can say that he was as deeply disappointed as the people in my riding are with what this plan would actually accomplish.

By the middle of this century, that bill I mentioned that the round table talked about is expected to grow to $20 billion a year and $40 billion in the worst case. That is the equivalent of several Calgary floods and Fort McMurray fires each year. That means more damage from storm surges, particularly in Atlantic Canada, as sea levels rise and as the Greenland ice cap melts. A drop in air quality means more hospital visits in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, and Vancouver. There is not a single member in the chamber who wants to see that happen, so let us talk plainly about what needs to happen next.

To avert catastrophic climate damage, we need to reduce the pollution that we pump into the air each year. The more we cut pollution, the lower the bill for future generations. It is really that simple. That pollution is measured in megatonnes or millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

In 1990, Canada emitted 613 megatonnes. A Liberal government then signed the Kyoto protocol, promising to reduce emissions by 6% by 2012, but by 2012, our carbon pollution had actually gone up from 613 megatonnes to 710. By 2014, according to Environment Canada, our emissions reached 732 megatonnes, 20% higher than when we signed on to Kyoto.

The fact that pollution keeps going up has never stopped governments from making promises. At another summit, this time in Copenhagen, the last government pledged to reduce Canada's emissions to 611 megatonnes by 2020, effectively bringing them back to where they were in 1990. Are we on track? Environment Canada projects that carbon pollution will get worse between now and 2020. According to its data, we will miss our target by 116 million tonnes. Let us not forget that the target, the one chosen by the Conservatives and then xeroxed by the Liberals on the way to Paris, is not nearly enough to save future generations from the enormous costs I spoke of earlier.

The best science shows that a tipping point will be reached if our planet heats up more than 2° above the pre-industrial level. Once we cross that tipping point, the damage to ecosystems and to our economy could be catastrophic and irreversible. That is why article 2 of the Paris accord calls for nations to work together to hold temperature increases to “well below that 2° red line”, and ideally to 1.5°. That is the goal of the Paris agreement and what I stand here to support.

The hard truth is that the targets set by Stephen Harper and now supported by the Liberals will not meet that goal. In fact, they knowingly undermine it. One virtue of the Liberals and Conservatives sharing the same climate goals is that it simplifies the math, because Mr. Harper's targets were already part of the calculation made by the UN Climate Secretariat last year before the Paris accord.

It does not have to be that way. The Americans and the Europeans are on track to meet the Copenhagen targets. They are cutting their pollution. Their economies are not stagnant. The American economy is growing.

We have a choice. Adapting to climate change is the defining challenge of our time. We can buckle underneath it. We can let it slam the brakes on our economy and tear down our infrastructure and damage our health, or we can rise to meet a challenge that will organize and measure the very best of our energies and skills as Canadians. We in the NDP intend to see Canada rise to this challenge. We have always done it before and we will do it again.

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

Mr. Speaker, it pleases me that we are getting closer to what will be a positive message to all Canadians when it comes time to vote on the Paris agreement. It addresses an accumulation of a number of things from Canadians in every region of the country. We understand how important the issue of climate change is to Canadians.

We disagree with some of the things that have been said, particularly by members of the Conservative Party.

Our Prime Minister has taken a national leadership role and has put something tangible in place. Do the New Democrats believe, as we do, that the revenues to be generated would be provided back to the provinces? Do those members believe that Ottawa's role is one of leadership and ensuring that all jurisdictions in Canada have some form of carbon reduction in place, which we have been talking so much about over the last few days?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do believe that under the Constitution there is a strong role for the federal government to show the leadership that Canadians have been demanding. We have seen local governments take the lead. The City of Nelson has a program for the installation of solar panels, whereby the individual consumers who install them will receive a lower price on that utility and save as a result. In the city of Hinton, Alberta, geothermal is taking off.

I do believe that the clean energy future we are talking about will start at the federal level, through its leadership. However, it also has to be acknowledged that is happening in the provinces and at the local level.

If the government is serious, the provinces should be able to make this a revenue neutral initiative. I think it is important that the revenues levied are not seen as a mere tax—they should not be, and were not seen as such in the British Columbian context, and need not be in this one either—and the provinces need to be allowed to retain the revenues, but only as a step to do what needs to be done, and much more aggressively than the Liberals are talking about with their initial $10 a tonne price, which will of course do nothing.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. He is passionate about improving the environment and creating a better future for coming generations, and he is dedicated to making that happen.

There are two possible approaches here. As the Liberals like to say, we could go the Conservative route and do nothing, or we could go with the New Democrats' approach. The NDP has a plan and has already introduced a bill on accountability with respect to dangerous climate change. Jack Layton's bill was introduced twice in the House of Commons.

Jack Layton had very high ambitions. He wanted to reduce climate change to 80% below 1990 levels—not 2005 levels, which makes no sense—by 2050. That is proof positive the NDP really wants to make progress.

The Liberals have plenty of nice things to say, but they do not actually do much. We need to take meaningful steps now. According to the now-defunct National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which lasted until the Liberals killed it, not tackling climate change right now will cost us $50 billion a year.

Does my colleague agree that, if we invest in fighting climate change now, future generations will benefit for a long time to come?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the passion my colleague from Drummond has shown for the environment since I met him in this place. I can only confirm what he has said. We did bring a bill forward. It was a real bill. To the everlasting shame of Parliament, that bill was defeated by unelected, unaccountable senators. That is something we should all be ashamed about.

The Liberals do not appear to have a plan. They have aspirations, and I salute those aspirations, but the time has come to have a real plan of action to actually do something that would be meaningful, not simply talk about it, as we did with Kyoto, but roll up our sleeves and work with the provinces, local governments, NGOs, and industry to bring about the future our children and grandchildren deserve.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.

I thank the right hon. member for Papineau for his motion.

I suspect that when most of us look back on our time in the House, we may well point to this motion as one of the most consequential votes of our careers. This is one of those rare moments when what is before us transcends parties and has implications for decades to come. The motion is about how this country will respond to the great challenge of our time, and how we will honour the principles of Paris.

Since coming to office, our government has been guided by some important principles: that environmental responsibility goes hand-in-hand with economic prosperity, that engagement is better than estrangement, that Canada works best when Canadians work together, and that no relationship is more important than the one with indigenous peoples.

These values have guided our actions and informed our policies. The motion before us today reflects those same values. The Paris agreement highlights the urgency of our environmental responsibility while pointing us toward new economic opportunities, and it speaks to the necessity of co-operation toward a common goal.

The agreement also reflects a compelling reality that while the transition to a lower carbon future might be long, the trajectory is clear, that we simply cannot continue along the present course but are at a pivotal moment, a time when the world truly begins the historic adjustment toward more renewable sources of energy.

Our government understands the imperatives of this moment. We are committed to making Canada a leader in the new clean energy economy of the future, and our actions have reflected that commitment.

We began by signing the Paris agreement. We became one of the founding members of the mission innovation agreement, the ambitious global agreement to double government investment in clean technology. We have signed a far-reaching agreement with our North American partners on climate, clean energy and the environment, and may I say with some local pride that much of that work was done in my home city of Winnipeg.

Our first budget invested $1 billion in clean energy and technology; $2 billion in a low carbon fund to work with the provinces; more than $100 million in energy efficiency; and billions more in public transit and evergreen infrastructure, including charging stations for electric vehicles and fuelling stations for alternatively fuelled vehicles.

Now we have set a benchmark for pricing carbon pollution starting at $10 per tonne in 2018 and rising by $10 each year to $50 per tonne by 2022. This will help Canada meet its climate change targets while providing greater certainty to Canadian businesses.

Our government has been moved and inspired by the perspective of indigenous people, a perspective that reminds us of our responsibility to those who have come before and those who will follow, of our enduring relationship to the land and the water and the air. It is also a perspective that places a great deal of emphasis on relationships. As Grand Chief Perry Bellegarde has said so well, “Before you build anything, build positive, respectful relationships”.

This, too, has been reflected in how we have developed and implemented public policy. We have reached out to tap the commonsense of Canadians on how best to move us along the continuum toward a lower carbon economy; and it is a continuum, because while it is exciting to think about the clean energy, low carbon economy of the future, we are not there yet, and we will not be there for years to come.

Even in light of the Paris agreement, as the world continues to transition to renewable sources of energy, the demand for fossil fuels will continue to rise. By 2040, a growing middle class in developing regions, such as Asia, will be consuming more barrels of oil every day, and to meet that demand, the world will have to make trillions of dollars in investments.

At the same time, the percentage of natural gas in the global energy mix is likely to increase as a natural transition fuel, cleaner than coal or oil, and more accessible than many renewables. For a country like ours, which is rich in both of these resources, this has profound implications.

We could simply say that we are going to shut down the oil sands and natural gas production and let others meet this global demand, let others have the jobs and reap the benefits. This is certainly one option, or we could say, let us use this period of increasing demand to our advantage. Let us build the infrastructure to get our energy to global markets sustainably and use the revenues to fund Canada's transition to cleaner forms of energy.

In other words, let us leverage the fossil fuel resources we have today to deliver clean energy solutions for tomorrow, which is why the Prime Minister has said that the choice between pipelines and wind turbines is a false one. We need both.

Provinces such as Alberta are demonstrating that a forward-thinking energy-producing jurisdiction can also be a leader in combatting climate change. That is the way forward for Canada. That is our vision for the future, to use the coming decades to meet rising global demand for oil and gas while funding the next generation of renewable energy.

That is only possible if we receive full value for our resources, and that is why our government has been clear that one of our key responsibilities is to help get our resources to market in an environmentally responsible way.

The problem is that Canadians lost faith in how major resource projects were assessed. Our challenge is to restore that trust, and that is what we are working hard to achieve. We have expanded consultations to build an environmental review process that carries the confidence of Canadians. We are meaningfully engaging with indigenous communities. We will initiate a modernization of the National Energy Board. We established an interim strategy with principles to give proponents certainty and the process transparency.

Will all of these efforts lead to unanimity on any particular project? Not only do I doubt it, I know it will not.

We understand that there are strongly held views on all sides, which is why it is so important that Canadians have the opportunity to be heard. At the end of the day, Canadians will be able to say, whether they agree with the decision or not, that the process was fair, the evidence was weighed, and their voices were heard.

Today's motion is consistent with our government's long-term plan to help combat climate change, build up our clean technologies, restore Canadians' trust in how we go about evaluating major resource projects, and get our energy to global markets. It advances good-paying, clean economy jobs for Canadians, and positions us at the forefront of what is both the great challenge and opportunity of our time, the transition to a lower carbon future.

There is a Chinese proverb that says, “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.” The best time to have been serious about climate change may have been years ago, but the second best time is now.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of planting trees, I am proud to say that I did plant well over 1,700 trees and it was more than 20 years ago. Those trees are well on their way now.

All through the conversation today, we have been hearing comments like “their voices will be heard” and “we are working together”. I wonder how we can actually believe that, when three of the premiers walked out of the meeting in which climate change was being discussed and this prospect of having the hammer brought down upon the provinces was outlined.

How can we call that working together? How can we call that working collaboratively?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, the Progressive Conservative government of Alberta made a decision to put a price on carbon. British Columbia has put a price on carbon. The Conservative government of Manitoba says it is going to put a price on carbon. Ontario and Quebec have put a price on carbon.

The government believes in putting a price on carbon. The New Democratic opposition believes in putting a price on carbon, and so does the Bloc Québécois. That only leaves the Conservative opposition in the House that refuses to believe that we should put a price on carbon.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order, please. I am sure that the hon. minister appreciates the coaching that he is getting from across the aisle, but it does go against the rules. I just want to remind the members that it cannot be done.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of accompanying the minister to the clean energy ministerial meetings in San Francisco this spring. It was a very positive meeting. There were attendees from, I believe, 27 countries from all over the world. He mentioned mission innovation. One remarkable moment I remember was when George Shultz, the former secretary of state with Ronald Reagan, someone who probably would not vote NDP if he lived in Canada, exhorted the world leaders there to put a $200-a-tonne price on carbon.

The other message that was repeated again and again was that we have to stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industries.

When is the minister's government going to do just that, as it promised during the election campaign?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his participation in the clean energy ministerial meeting in San Francisco. I was very happy that he attended with us and was able to experience first-hand the way in which much of the world is viewing Canada as leaders in the world, and particularly our involvement in the North American accord. To have both the critic, the member for Portage—Lisgar, and my hon. friend with the government was important. To make a statement in many of these international fora, it is important that Canada speak with one voice, or at least, listen with many ears. Therefore, I appreciated that.

The subsidy to fossil fuels is a G20 commitment, of which Canada is a part, over time. The government will take that decision when it believes the economic conditions are right for that particular policy, which is shared by at least 20 nations around the world.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister is aware that way back in 2008, under the former Harper Conservative government, in the Speech from the Throne, the government did indeed commit to implementing a price on carbon. The then Conservative minister for the environment said, “Carbon trading and the establishment of a market price on carbon are key parts of our Turning the Corner plan”. He further said that they would like to force industry to reduce its greenhouse emissions, set up a carbon emission trading market, and establish a market price on carbon.

Of course, like much of the plans under the former government, it went nowhere.

I wonder if the minister is aware that back in 2008 this was the position of the Conservative government.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very impressed with my hon. friend's research. I am glad to be reminded of that.

He also could have quoted Preston Manning, who said exactly the same thing. Mr. Manning talked about how unusual it was that Conservatives do not understand that markets were the best mechanism to deal with an issue such as climate change. There are many examples of Conservatives, and conservative thinkers, who agree that carbon pricing is a sensible way, not the only way, one of many ways, to tackle climate change.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak in favour of the ratification of the historic Paris agreement. It is one that sets the stage for the world to come together to meet the challenges posed by climate change and displays a level of leadership on this file not seen for far too long.

As someone who has spent a good portion of his life working in the climate field and educating Canadians on the science and solutions to the climate crisis, I am proud to count myself among the members of this government who are working towards meeting this multi-generational challenge.

I am proud, because this government understands that the Paris agreement, although historic, is simply the beginning of something much larger. Indeed, it was among the first key steps in this government's plan to meet this challenge, and many steps have been taken since then by our government under the leadership of our Prime Minister, our Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and our Minister of Natural Resources.

The data is in, and the facts speak for themselves. Here in Canada, we are already seeing the impacts of climate change and a changing climate. We are seeing thawing permafrost, coastal erosion, the arrival of new diseases, as well as more frequent extreme events, such as flooding, droughts, and heat waves.

Homeowners in flood-prone areas have already borne serious losses, as we have seen from events in Alberta, Toronto, and elsewhere. The 2016 parliamentary budget officer's report tells us that Canadian insurers have paid at least $1 billion per year in claims for losses resulting from weather events in the last six years alone. Seniors are also living with increased heat-advisory days. Young Canadians are experiencing increased asthma diagnoses. Canadians in general are experiencing the hardships posed by a changing climate. The examples go on and on.

The changes in climate we are seeing now are the result of past and present emissions, and are already locked in. Therefore, even if we were to cut our emissions to zero tomorrow, the climate would continue to change because of the lag between our actions and the lifespan of those emissions in the atmosphere. That is one of the main reasons why action is urgent.

Six months ago, we began, as we promised Canadians we would, by consulting them. With the momentum of the Paris climate agreement talks, our government began these consultations by meeting with provinces and territories. Together we released the Vancouver declaration and, with it, launched a national conversation about how Canada should address the climate crisis.

Our government understands the importance of meeting the international commitments that we made in Paris. We also know that leading our country through a transition to a stronger, more resilient, low-carbon economy will ultimately improve our quality of life here in Canada. As such, early on in our mandate, a concrete plan for a pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change began to be developed. It is a framework that was reflected in our first budget, I might add, and one that outlines investments in green infrastructure, green jobs, science and technologies, and much more. Further, it outlined direct investments in adaptation and mitigation, and this latter point is especially important, particularly for those communities most at risk in the northern regions of our country.

While strong mitigation actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can help us avoid unmanageable situations in the future, strong adaptation measures will ensure that we manage the unavoidable impacts we are currently facing and will continue to face moving forward. Adaptation and mitigation are not either-or choices. Both are equally important and demand action.

There is already considerable work under way all across the country to adapt to the changing climate. In budget 2016, our government committed $129 million to build the science base to inform decision-making to protect the health and well-being of Canadians, to build resilience in the north and in our indigenous communities, and to ensure and enhance the competitiveness of key economic sectors. We have also made significant commitments to renewing Canada's infrastructure and protecting Canada's communities from the impacts of climate change.

Adaptation is not just about newer, bigger, or stronger physical infrastructure. It is also about how we as Canadians live resilient lives and live in resilient communities. It is the decisions we make about where and how we live, how we run our businesses, and how we support our neighbours. It is also about relationships with indigenous peoples. Indigenous communities have strongly expressed to us that climate change threatens their very physical, cultural, and social well-being, and even survival.

It is clear that climate change impacts touch every region and sector of our country, including the north. Our government is working alongside Inuit governments, the United States, Sweden, and Finland to finalize a governance model focusing on the resilience of the Arctic states, indigenous peoples and communities, and the ecosystems on which they depend.

The federal government is once again a partner. We are working with all orders of government, including indigenous peoples, the private and not-profit sectors, and academia, strengthening our ability to make prudent decisions because our government recognizes that by mobilizing other governments, stakeholders, and Canadians to tackle this challenge, we are protecting our people, our communities, our assets, our economy, and our environment from the inevitable impacts otherwise.

Indeed, our government also recognizes that adapting to climate change comes with a host of other significant benefits, including things like cleaner air, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, enhanced biodiversity, more vibrant public spaces, and a strengthened social fabric. Our government is committed to working with all Canadians to make Canada stronger, more resilient, and more prosperous. In addition to these historic steps that we have already taken, the latest step of putting a price on carbon is crucial and one that would help Canada meet its commitments outlined in the Paris agreement.

That will help our government 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.

A floor price on carbon, such as the one that was announced, will help Canada reach its targets for greenhouse gas emissions while providing businesses with greater stability and improved predictability. After decades of inaction, after years of missed opportunities, we will finally take the measures necessary to protect our planet for our children and grandchildren.

We are focused on real, concrete, and sustainable measures to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and grow our economy. Our approach will ensure that all Canadian jurisdictions put a price on carbon pollution by 2018.

Eighty percent of Canadians already live in a jurisdiction where there is a price on carbon. However, other measures are necessary. It is important to put a price on carbon across the country. Every province and territory will have the opportunity to decide how to implement carbon pricing, whether it be by putting a direct price on carbon pollution or adopting a cap-and-trade system.

Setting a price for carbon pollution will give Canada a significant advantage while we build a clean-growth economy and it will help our businesses to become more innovative and competitive.

Canadians know that putting a price on pollution will promote innovation and the creation of new, stimulating employment opportunities for Canada's middle class. The people of my riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges and Canadians across the country know that reducing our greenhouse gas emissions will make our economy more competitive and help grow it in a sustainable way.

Let us just take a moment to ask and even answer some of the key questions that may be posed regarding the ratification of the Paris agreement and our plan to meet the challenges of climate change and our commitments set forth in the Paris agreement. In the process, it may allow me to debunk some of the assertions that have been put forth by some hon. members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

First, would this plan take the money out of provinces? The answer is no. No matter how hard the opposition members try to say otherwise, the money and all revenues received from the price on carbon would be given back to each province, and the provinces would decide how these funds should be spent.

Second, would this help us reach our GHG reduction goals? The answer simply put is yes. Pricing pollution is one of the most efficient ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to reach our objective to protect the environment and create a clean-growth economy.

Third, would ratification of the agreement and our plan to meet our obligations under it create opportunities for Canadians? The answer is yes. Through market incentives created by putting a price on carbon, our investments in green infrastructure, public transportation, and science and technologies will help us realize new and exciting job prospects for well-paying jobs and grow the economy and help the middle class and those working hard to join it.

In conclusion, I just want to add the following. In addition to the economic opportunities and health and security benefits just presented, this is simply what we as members of Parliament have been called here to do. Canadians have been calling for action on climate. The majority of Canadians support putting a price on carbon. They understand that the implications of inaction far outweigh the implications of action—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order, please.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member was providing some most interesting concluding thoughts. Perhaps he could share those concluding thoughts with the House.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a wonderful question. I thank him for providing me with an opportunity to conclude my remarks in responding to that question.

Canadians understand that the implications of inaction far outweigh the implications of action. That holds true for current and future generations of Canadians. We owe it to them to be sure, and to all of those who came before us and made the hard choices that were necessary to build a strong Canada that we can all be proud of.

For these reasons, and more, I wholeheartedly support the ratification of the Paris agreement, and I encourage all hon. members of the House to support it as well.