Debates of May 1st, 2018

Opposition Motion—Production of Documents on Carbon pricing

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I know the member represents a riding north of the city in which I represent a riding, and I know that all-day GO Transit train service to Barrie has been one of the big achievements in the last few years of the Wynne government in Ontario. In fact, that government has rebuilt the GO Transit system to the point where we do not have daily cancellations and breakdowns on the train system. The largest investment in rail in the world is taking place right now in the GTA. It has delivered all-day service to the community that the member represents, which unlocks all sorts of economic opportunities in his community and also gives people an alternative to driving.

The investment in GO Transit is partially financed out of this shifting of perspective, where we tax pollution and then reinvest into options where we give people methods of transportation around the GTA that cut greenhouse gas emissions. We are also moving toward electrification. I know the member supports that project, so I am just curious about how he would pay for it if he were not going to pay for it with taxes.

The document the member wants uncovered was produced by the Conservatives. Why did he not just read it and release it when he was in government?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his acknowledgement that the previous Conservative government invested $8 million into the redevelopment and re-establishment of the part-time GO service back to Barrie. I want to thank the member for acknowledging that the previous Conservative government and the previous member of Parliament did that.

I also want to talk about the fact that he mentioned taxes, because this is an issue most Canadians would like to understand. They would like to know what the impact of the Liberal-proposed carbon tax is going to be, but they do not know what the impact is going to be in terms of investments and emissions because the Liberals are redacting the information. They are blacking it out.

If the hon. member and the current government believe that this carbon tax is going to be as great as they say it is going to be for Canadians, then they should share that information with Canadians. They should not be non-transparent about it, which is exactly what they are doing.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, economic analyses show that the different carbon tax measures in Canada are having a positive impact on the environment without hurting the economy. In Quebec, the people I represent have always valued the opinions of Gérald Fillion, a Radio-Canada economist who came to the following conclusion:

In principle, carbon pricing should generate extra revenue for the government, create changes in consumer behaviour, and encourage smart investments to promote sustainable development. Carbon pricing is a long-term commitment, and its short-term repercussions should not stop us from thinking about future generations.

My constituents in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot are very concerned about climate change; why then scare them about one of the proposed solutions, carbon pricing?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us first make one thing clear: It is not carbon pricing, it is carbon taxing. That is one of the buzzwords members of the left like to use when they talk about this issue.

If they want to talk about examples, we can certainly look at B.C. It brought in a carbon tax in 2008, which started at $10 a tonne and rose gradually to $30 by 2012. There was a small, temporary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for a few years, but emissions in B.C. have been steadily increasing. The reason they are increasing is that we live in Canada. We need to heat our homes. We live in a cold, barren wasteland. We need to drive our cars to different places.

If the government is going to penalize people for their everyday activities, not to mention the cost of goods that is going to increase because it will end up being passed down to the consumer by producers and shippers, then I do not see the sense in this, unless the government explains to Canadians how much it is in fact going to cost them. They have to get Canadians to buy into it. They cannot just arbitrarily impose a carbon tax and not tell them what it is going to cost. Maybe Canadians will buy into it. My guess is they will not, because once the information is known and released by this non-transparent government, then reality will start setting in and Canadians will see the actual cost to them, their families, and future generations in this country.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I rise here today to once again reaffirm our clear commitment to tackling climate change.

Canadians understand that climate change is real. They know the governments at home and around the world must urgently address this challenge. That is what Canadians elected us to do, and we have a serious, practical, and cost-effective plan to tackle climate change. It is important that we take action to ensure our children and grandchildren live in a world where our environment is clean and our economy is strong.

Canadians understand that climate change is real. They know that the governments at home and around the world must urgently address this challenge. It is the right choice to make for our children and grandchildren. That is what Canadians elected us to do, and we have a serious, practical plan.

Today we are seeing the impacts of climate change across the country, and Canadian families are already affected. Let me provide a few examples.

One of the hardest calls I have ever had to make was to a rancher in Alberta's interior. Her family ranch was destroyed by intense wildfires that spread through B.C. and Alberta. Today, as a result of climate change, these wildfires are raging longer and are harsher than ever before.

Last year, I was in Gatineau, Quebec, helping to fill sandbags. As I was talking to the families who were protecting their homes from the rising flood waters, some homes were saved and many more were destroyed. We are seeing devastation like this across Canada and around the world.

Then there is the heartbreaking story from last summer when I was visiting the high Arctic. I spoke to an Inuit boy from Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, who told me about the impacts of climate change that he was seeing in his homeland. He told me about his feet getting stuck in thawing permafrost like quicksand when he was hunting. He told me about the disappearance of the caribou, their country food. He also told me of experienced hunters—fathers, uncles, brothers, providers—dying after falling through the sea ice that they could no longer tell the thickness of. Today Canada's high Arctic is warming at three times the rate of the rest of Canada. Climate change is real, and it is having a real impact on Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Pollution is not free. It is a tax on future generations. From 1983 to 2004, insurance claims in Canada from severe weather events were almost $400 million a year. In the past decade, that amount has tripled to $1.2 billion a year.

By taking smart, sensible, and practical action, we can avert the worst impacts of climate change and grasp the enormous economic opportunities around the world worth trillions of dollars. By acting today, we can protect our environment and strengthen a clean growth economy.

The previous government was never serious about climate change. The Harper government announced targets with no intention of meeting them. Today we have the Leader of the Opposition saying that he is against the price on pollution. However, he is once again committed to meeting the Paris Agreement targets. We cannot magically meet our Paris Agreement targets without using the market. Canadians expect us to act, and that is what we have been doing since we formed government.

Putting a price on pollution is central to any credible plan to combat climate change. That is exactly why we are working in partnership with the provinces and territories to price carbon.

Central to any credible climate plan is a price on pollution. That is exactly why we are working in partnership with the provinces and territories to price carbon. Canadians know that polluting is not free. We need to price what we do not want, which is pollution, and invest in the things that we do want, like lower taxes, health care, and clean technology solutions that create good jobs here in Canada. Carbon pricing is flexible, is cost-effective, and lets the markets do what they do best: drive creativity and reward solutions. We could even call it a “conservative” idea.

As a recent Globe and Mail editorial put it:

Putting a price on carbon is an effective way of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and fighting climate change. There is ample, persuasive evidence of this.

The research backs this up. Just yesterday, Environment and Climate Change Canada published a study that found that by 2022, a nationwide price on carbon pollution that meets the federal standards would eliminate 80 million to 90 million tonnes of greenhouse emissions. That is the equivalent of taking between 23 million and 26 million cars off the road for a year, or the equivalent of closing 20 coal-fired plants. Without a doubt, pricing carbon pollution is making a major contribution to helping Canada meet its climate targets under the Paris Agreement.

Pricing pollution is not only effective; it also strengthens our economy. Take British Columbia. It put a price on carbon pollution more than a decade ago, and since 2007, it has reduced emissions by between 5% and 15%, while provincial real GDP grew by more than 17% from 2007 to 2015.

Today over 80% of Canadians live in a province that already has a price on pollution—in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia—and last year these provinces led the country in economic growth.

Carbon pricing is the approach that economists overwhelmingly recommend. In fact, it is the policy that over 30 governments and 150 leading businesses have come together to support through the international Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition. This group includes Canada's major banks, alongside Canadian companies in the consumer goods, energy, and resource development sectors. Steve Williams, the CEO of Suncor, Canada's largest oil producer, put it this way: “We think climate change is happening. We think a broad-based carbon price is the right answer.”

Around the world, governments are realizing the efficiency and effectiveness of pricing carbon pollution. Today some 40 countries, including Canada, are pricing carbon pollution, and more governments are planning to implement similar systems soon.

According to the World Bank, a price on pollution covers nearly half of the world's economy today. China recently launched the world's largest carbon pricing system, and last year Ontario, Quebec, and California signed an agreement to create the world's second-largest carbon market. A carbon price works best when people and businesses find ways not to pay it by investing in clean solutions to save money. This is not about raising money; it is about sending the right signals to spur clean innovation.

We have been clear that any revenue will remain in the province and territory it comes from. Provided they meet the federal standard, our approach gives provinces and territories the flexibility to design their own systems and to decide how best to use the revenues from pricing pollution to support families and businesses and to strengthen a clean growth economy. Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec are reinvesting the revenues in their own provinces through measures such as targeted rebates or tax cuts to households and businesses, investments in public transit, clean technology solutions, and home retrofit programs that help families and businesses save money.

These investments are already making a big difference for Canadians. They are creating good jobs, supporting cleaner growth, and driving investments in cities and communities. Importantly, governments can and should design their own carbon pricing systems to avoid putting extra financial pressure on low-income and middle-class households. For example, provinces can choose to provide money-back rebates, to cut taxes, or to fund discounts on technologies that help people save money on energy bills. Governments in Canada are already making those kinds of choices.

British Columbia's carbon price system has a tax credit for low-income groups. It helps many offset the cost of that province's carbon price through direct payments to low-earning families. By cutting personal or corporate taxes, B.C. also returns revenues from its carbon tax to households and small businesses.

I am very proud that our government is taking the steps to price pollution across the country. The evidence from at home and around the world is extraordinarily strong. It shows that pricing pollution creates good middle-class jobs and gives families and businesses an incentive to make choices that will help them save energy and money. Canadians expect a healthy environment and a growing economy, and that is exactly what we are doing right.

In Alberta, about 60% of households receive full or partial rebates to compensate for the cost of the carbon tax. Families whose income in less than $95,000 a year receive a full rebate. Putting a price on pollution can protect families from the net costs. It helps reduce pollution and sets Canada up for success in the global transition to cleaner growth. The environment and the economy go together. Canadians expect a healthy environment and a growing economy, and that is exactly what we are doing right.

For too long in Canada and elsewhere, cynics have worked hard to stall action on climate change. Some have failed to see the enormous opportunity before us, while others simply refuse to acknowledge that climate change is real. However, the time for inaction is over, and that is why Canada is leading during the clean growth century.

Part of our plan is pricing carbon pollution, but it involves so much more. Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England and a great Canadian, put it best when he said, “The point is that the more we invest with foresight, the less we will regret in hindsight.” According to the World Bank, the Paris Agreement will help us open up nearly $23 trillion in new opportunities for climate-smart investments in Canada and emerging markets around the world between now and 2030.

With that in mind, let me lay out other parts of our climate plan, which together will not only reduce carbon pollution but will also renew our infrastructure, strengthen our transportation networks, and, through smart and strategic investments, spur clean innovation and opportunity in Canada's towns and cities.

We are investing $21.9 billion in green infrastructure to build energy-efficient homes and offices and help families save on their energy bills. We are investing $20.1 billion to support urban public transit to help reduce commute times in our cities, to increase the use of clean transportation, and allow Canadians to spend more time with their families and less time in traffic.

We are going to phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030. This will help prevent 260 premature deaths, 40,000 fewer asthma episodes, and 190,000 fewer days of breathing difficulty and reduced activity, providing health benefits of $1.2 billion during the regulated period. With the help of an expert task force, we will make sure the transition is a fair one for Canadian workers and communities that depend on coal.

We are implementing a clean fuel standard to encourage Canadians to use cleaner fuels, and we are improving energy efficiency through stricter building codes and standards.

Finally, Canada is making historic investments in our rapidly growing clean-tech and clean energy sectors. With a $2.2 billion investment, we are fostering clean-tech research and development, production, and export, and we are accelerating the growth of this industry to capture an increasing share of the global market.

These investments will create well-paying middle-class jobs across our country, and we already see Canadian companies leading the way. In Burnaby, B.C., Ballard Power Systems is creating fuel cells that are used in zero emission vehicles around the world. While I was in China on a trade mission, I saw city buses that were using Ballard's innovative technology.

In Edmonton, Alberta, I visited a manufacturing facility, Landmark Homes, that makes net-zero homes that look like any other suburban home. This company employs over 300 people. It uses energy-efficient materials and puts solar panel roofs on its houses. I met a family that lives in one of these homes, and instead of paying hydro bills, they earn revenue from selling electricity.

Alberta is also home to the Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance, which, through collaboration and the sharing of technologies among companies, is creating cleaner air, bigger efficiencies, and better-protected lands.

In Foam Lake, Saskatchewan, Milligan BioFuels is turning damaged canola seeds into biodiesel, a cleaner fuel that can power the cars, trucks, and buses in our towns and cities.

In Winnipeg, Manitoba, I toured a factory last year that makes electric buses. These incredible buses run smoothly, noiselessly, and emission-free. The company, New Flyer, is creating good middle-class jobs. In Toronto, the award-winning company ecobee makes smart thermostats that can easily be controlled from a smart phone. They help consumers save money and reduce their emissions while making their homes more comfortable. GHGSat, a company in Montreal, uses satellites to monitor industrial greenhouse gas emissions around the world. In 2016, it launched its first satellite into low earth orbit. Lastly, in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CarbonCure has hit on a solution that will benefit everyone by developing a technology for capturing industrial carbon dioxide and using it to produce stronger concrete.

In short, Canadian companies are stimulating innovation and creating jobs in a clean-growth economy. In doing so, they are showing the whole world what Canadian innovation looks like.

Today Canada's clean-tech sector ranks first among the G20 countries, according to the 2017 “Global Cleantech Innovation Index”. This year, 13 of Canada's clean-tech companies were ranked within the top 100 in the world, and Canadian companies are blowing away the competition for the Carbon XPRIZE, an award for companies that find innovative ways to reduce carbon emissions. This year, four Canadian companies reached the final round for the $20-million award.

However, for Canada to continue innovating and creating good, middle-class jobs in the clean-growth century, we must signal to the market that we are open for investment, and that is why our government has pursued pragmatic, flexible, and smart climate policies. Canadians expect us to uphold our commitment to the Paris Agreement, our commitment to growing our economy and strengthening the middle class, and our commitment to future generations.

With that, let me end with a quick story. Two years ago, I was in Morocco discussing climate change with leaders from around the world. While there, I witnessed a telling conversation. It was between an Inuit elder and the leader of a Pacific small island state, both places where the impacts of climate change are drastically altering the landscape and people's way of life.

We know that Canada's High Arctic is warming at three times the rate of the rest of the country, and many small island states are facing rising sea levels that are destroying the infrastructure, and ultimately, their homelands. As the leader of the island state was describing the devastation of storm surges and rising ocean waters on his land, and the Inuit elder was describing the effects of warming weather and melting sea ice on his land, the Inuit elder realized something. He said, “So my homeland is melting, and it's causing yours to go under water.” It was a powerful moment, and it underscored our need to work together with the entire world to tackle climate change.

Our government is going to continue to act for the benefit of our environment and our economy. We are going to put a price on carbon pollution to reduce emissions, create jobs, and stimulate clean growth.

Our government will continue acting in the interest of our environment and our economy. We will price carbon pollution to reduce emissions, create jobs, and spur clean growth. We will continue investing in the future, making our buildings more energy efficient, our transportation cleaner, and our industry more innovative and competitive. Ultimately, why will we do this? It is because we owe it to our kids and our grandkids.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, we know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the cost of the carbon tax on the Canadian economy would be $10 billion. We know that the Liberals are hiding the cost of the carbon tax from Canadians because they know that it will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet their targets. It is just a cash grab. However, we know, based on the finance minister's testimony at committee yesterday, that not only are the Liberals covering up the full cost of the carbon tax, they are covering up the fact that it is a sexist carbon tax.

Given the gender pay gap and the disproportionate burden of child care expenses women bear, not that the minister would know, because I do not think she has had to fill up her car here, as she has a driver, this tax will have a disproportionate negative effect on women, as any woman who filled up her van's gas tank before she drove her kids to school today, at $1.70 a litre in B.C., would know.

I have a very simple question for the minister. Why is the Prime Minister gender budgeting his way to making life harder for Canadian women with this sexist carbon tax?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was very happy to drive my children to their activities yesterday.

Canadians understand that climate change is real and that we need to take smart, practical action to tackle climate change, as much as for women as for men. We know that women face the disproportionate impact of climate change. We see that across the world, where women are often the ones on the front lines of devastating incidents.

We will always stand up for women. We understand that we need to always look at the impact of any policy we put in place. That is why, when it comes to carbon pricing, provinces have the ability to take the revenue and return it in a way they see fit. They can do that as tax cuts. They can do that as investments in public transportation. We know that women are more likely to be single moms, and they are taking public transportation. Women can make investments in clean innovation. We want to see women entrepreneurs succeed in the clean-growth century.

As a mom, I know that we need to take action on climate change. What is the party opposite's plan to tackle climate change?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the environment minister for her speech. I appreciated much of what she said. I would also like to commend the federal government on its decision to finally put a price on carbon. It is the right thing to do. A number of provinces have already implemented this sort of initiative. British Columbia has been putting a price on carbon for about 10 years now, and Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia will soon do so as well. Obviously, as an environmentalist and conservationist, I applaud this initiative, even though I think that it could go even further.

However, every rose has its thorn, and in this case the bad news is that, although the Liberals have interesting and worthwhile things to say, they do not always follow through in their actions and decisions. There are often inconsistencies, so here are my two questions.

First, how does my colleague think that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions if we increase oil and gas production?

Second, if the federal government wants to transition away from fossil fuel energy, why is it still granting over $1 billion in subsidies to oil companies?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and I appreciate his support for carbon pricing.

I know that the NDP recognizes that we need to tackle climate change, but our government understands that we need to do so while growing a clean economy. We are in a transition phase.

It is ironic that the federal New Democrats do not support the Alberta NDP. Alberta's premier is working very hard. His government is the one that imposed a carbon tax and is eliminating carbon in that province. He also raised the price on oil sands emissions. These people are working very hard.

We must ensure that we are working for everyone. I am the environment minister for Albertans and all Canadians. We are going to work hard to address climate change and build a clean-growth economy.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I cannot help but feel that today's motion is an opportunity for the opposition to justify inaction on the climate file altogether.

In her remarks, the minister correctly identified that pollution is not free. That is because the atmosphere belongs to all of us, and when polluters degrade the atmosphere I breathe, they ought to pay for it. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

It is not just that there is a cost to pollution. There is massive opportunity in addressing the threat climate change poses. In my riding, Trinity Inspection Services is creating local jobs, and it has helped Nova Scotia reduce its emissions levels by over 30% since 2005.

Could the minister please comment on the massive economic opportunity we can capitalize on by addressing climate change?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for making the very good point that in ridings across the country, we are seeing amazing businesses that are innovating and creating clean solutions, and that is exactly why we want to put a price on pollution. It will create incentives for people to choose those solutions, to choose solutions that will save them money, ensure that we tackle climate change, and grow the economy.

We can look at the economic opportunity, which Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, and a great Canadian, has said is $23 trillion. I want to make sure that Canadian companies are taking advantage of that opportunity.

We are already punching above our weight, and this is happening in every single province in the country. We are seeing amazing innovation. It is from small businesses to big businesses, from the energy sector to the clean-tech sector. I am extraordinarily proud of the ingenuity of Canada's engineers, of Canada's business people, of Canada's innovators.

We are going to tackle climate change, and we are also going to grow a clean economy that will create good jobs.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the fall of 2016, we were having a debate in the House on the government's pan-Canadian framework on climate change. I said at the time that I commended the government for putting a price on carbon, but the government's plan has some serious flaws. I think one of the flaws is that it is not transparent enough. The government is not being transparent about the cost to families. It is also not being transparent about modelling the numbers to 2030.

Fifty dollars a tonne does not get us to our Paris Agreement targets. By 2030 we are supposed to be at around 500 megatonnes of emissions in this country. Most economists say that we need to be at around $130 a tonne. That is $65 billion out of the Canadian economy every year, which is about 3% of GDP. That is why it is so important that the government be transparent about this issue. It needs to ensure revenue neutrality to the taxpayer, not to the federal government, on the price of carbon. It also needs to acknowledge that carbon pricing is regressive in nature, and it needs to provide relief for low-income Canadians.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for actually believing that we need to put a price on what we do not want, which is pollution.

We have taken a different approach. We have said that we want to price pollution but also take other measures, because that is a smart, practical, low-cost way to tackle pollution.

In terms of transparency, the Leader of the Opposition has said that he has a plan to meet our Paris Agreement targets, but he is not going to announce what the plan is. I would ask opposition members if they can tell us quite squarely what the Conservatives plan on doing, because as Canadians know, for a decade they did nothing.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. There are still many doubts about the Government of Canada's ability to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. The formal commitments made by the Government of Canada when it signed international documents in Paris have not changed; the Conservatives made the same ones. My question is this: will there be a report on what we have achieved in terms of greenhouse gas reductions and does the Minister of Environment and Climate Change plan on meeting these targets by the time the agreements come to term?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I hope he is still a member of the parliamentary swim team. I have not had the chance to go swimming for a long time, but I plan to return to it.

We obviously have a plan and I am very proud of it. It is going to help us achieve the Paris accord targets while growing a clean economy. Carbon pricing is part of the plan, but so are our historic investments in public transit and in clean innovations, and our investments that will protect Canadians from the impact of climate change that they are already experiencing.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful colleague from Salaberry—Suroît.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to talk about climate change and all the issues related to this incredible challenge we are facing. As legislators, as parliamentarians, we need to realize that this is probably the biggest challenge of our generation and that, in the coming decades, our children and grandchildren will judge us as a society and as an international community based on our success or failure in terms of how we tackle this important issue, namely the risks associated with global warming.

That is why we need to take this issue very seriously, perhaps more seriously than we have taken other issues, because the repercussions will be huge on every level. I would remind members that there is a reason that former U.S. vice-president Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change.

We are in the midst of a migrant crisis, a refugee crisis. There were more refugees around the world last year than at any other time in history. There were more than during the Second World War. Now people face the risk of becoming climate refugees, people who have to leave their part of the world or their country because it will become uninhabitable, tensions will rise, and conflict will erupt around natural resources, access to water, and so on.

I mention this so that everyone can understand the scope of the situation that today's opposition motion gives us the opportunity to discuss in the House. I would now like to explain why, at the end of my speech as the NDP environment critic, I will present an amendment to the motion moved by our friends in the Conservative Party that will improve it and make it more balanced.

The Conservative motion calls for transparency. We support transparency. We need information in order to make sound decisions. The public needs to be kept informed. Having information on the impact of carbon pricing is a good idea, in principle. Upon reading the motion for the first time, one might think, “Why not?”, this makes sense and we could learn from the experience of others. For example, Quebec, California and other U.S. states have been using a carbon exchange, which is one way of pricing carbon and encouraging companies to change their ways and adopt more environmentally friendly ways of manufacturing products that cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. There are other areas where pricing is possible. British Columbia has had coal pricing for a decade now. Let us look into what that means for the people of British Columbia, for the families and businesses and the opportunity they have to innovate and improve how they do things. We could also debate this with other provinces such as Alberta and Ontario, which have their own way of pricing carbon.

The Conservative motion ignores the other side of the coin. The motion talks about the potential impact on families and individuals. Yes, but if we do nothing, if we do not take leadership on this, if we take no action on global warming and its effects, about which there is unassailable international scientific consensus, there is a potential impact there as well. Global warming, which is already under way and could be catastrophic if the temperature rises more than 2°C per year above 1990 reference levels, will result in more natural disasters and climate extremes. I am talking about natural disasters that will have an even greater impact than what we have seen so far to the detriment of countless economic sectors.

If we want to be logical, balanced, and transparent in this debate, we also need to find out the cost of not taking action, the consequences of the extreme temperatures we may be facing. It has already begun in Quebec and across Canada. We already have studies and numbers.

The average number of natural disasters in Canada has doubled over the past 30 years. It is not that there were no natural disasters before, but they were fewer in number, less serious, and had less of an impact on people's lives, our environment, and our economy.

Climate change and the rising number of natural disasters are not unrelated. Quite the opposite, and there is a cost associated with that. Since we are talking about insurance, from 1983 to 2004, insured losses from natural disasters cost an average of $373 million a year in Canada. However, in the next decade, from 2005 to 2015, the average annual losses more than tripled. They were three times as high. They cost an average of $1.2 billion per year. We can already see that climate change is having an impact and that there is a cost associated with it.

The federal government's disaster financial assistance arrangements program helps the provinces and territories recover from natural disasters. In 1970, it paid out an average of $54 million. From 1995 to 2004, the program gave out $291 million per year. From 2005 to 2015, it paid out $410 million per year. In the past six years, this fund provided more financial assistance than it has in its 39 years of operation. The increase in the cost of this federal insurance over the past 20 years is a result of the increase in the number and intensity of large-scale natural disasters. Our Conservative friends like to talk about the impact on our wallets and pockets. There has already been an impact because it is costing the government a lot of money in insurance alone, and that is not even to mention individuals.

There is also an impact on our economic ability to make the transition and maintain acceptable economic growth. The two go hand in hand. Climate change can result in many economic losses. I talked about natural disasters and extreme weather events, but we also have to consider the impact on public health spending, losses in agricultural productivity, financial coverage of risk, or insurance, premature wear and tear on infrastructure, and energy costs. All these impacts could slow our economic growth if we do nothing. We must be fully aware of them.

The impacts of climate change are quite varied and include infrastructure that must be rebuilt, health problems, and destroyed crops. It can be difficult to evaluate their cost, but several studies have been conducted. I will name a few because it is important that this be part of the debate if we want to have a sound, balanced, and well-informed discussion. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, estimates that a 2°C increase in global warming could reduce global GDP by 2% per year. That is significant.

Some of the more direct costs in Quebec are associated with flood damage. Take, for example, the flooding this year and last year. Shoreline erosion resulting from decreased winter ice cover and infrastructure damaged by repeated freeze-thaw cycles are two more examples. I have the pleasure of living in Montreal, and I can say that the potholes are very real. When temperatures vary significantly during the winter, the snow melts and water seeps into the asphalt, which then cracks when the water freezes again. This happens several times a year.

I want to read a quote regarding the impact on the global economy. “Taking action now will not only solve the problems of protecting the planet, but it will be a tremendous boost for economies.” Jim Yong Kim, the president of the World Bank, said this in 2014. I could also quote the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding the potential impact on the American economy.

To have a balanced motion that looks at the overall impact of a carbon tax or climate change, I move, seconded by the member for Salaberry—Suroît, an amendment to the motion:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “indicating” and substituting the following: “to Canadian families how much the price on carbon proposed in Budget 2018 will cost them, and how much the growing effects of climate change will cost them if there is no carbon tax, in order to provide greater transparency to Canadians.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. If the sponsor is not present, the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip, or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party may give or refuse consent on the sponsor's behalf.

Since the sponsor is not present in the chamber, I ask the acting opposition whip, the hon. member for Foothills, if he consents to this amendment being moved.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

No, Madam Speaker.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie speak. I truly enjoy having him here in the House. He can rest assured that we are going to do everything in our power to make sure he is not here a year and half from now. Of course, I hope he will not take that personally.

Now for his question about the impact of greenhouse gases. We all agree that we need to eliminate greenhouse gases as much as possible. That is why our government set a target that has been recognized not only by the current government, but by President Obama and the entire planet as well. The Paris agreement target is exactly the same as the target set by our government.

Everyone also agrees that the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that the Liberal carbon tax will knock $10 billion off the economy. Furthermore, everyone agrees that the Department of Natural Resources found that under the Conservative government, greenhouse gas emissions dropped by 2.2% and the GDP rose.

Why does the NDP want to know what the impact will be if we do nothing, since greenhouse gas emissions dropped under our government?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, which are not always flattering, but are always relevant.

I am sorry that the Conservative Party rejected our motion, and in doing so, shut down an entire part of the debate. The Conservatives talk about transparency, but their refusal to talk about anything that is not in line with their stance only undermines transparency. They want to cover up an unavoidable part of reality.

Here in Canada, the national round table on the environment and the economy estimated in 2011 that the cost of climate change would be high and could rise from around $5 billion per year in 2020 to somewhere between $21 billion and $43 billion by 2050, depending on the scenario. Pricing carbon has an economic impact, but clearly, so does doing nothing.

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

Madam Speaker, to see how successful having a price on pollution is, one only needs to look at a province like British Columbia where there already is a form of pricing on carbon and the economy is doing exceptionally well. Now is the time for us to ensure that throughout Canada there is a standard policy that has that price on pollution. Among the benefits of greening the economy by getting more innovation brought in at all different levels will be the creation of good middle-class jobs.

I wonder if my colleague across the way could provide his thoughts on the potential significant job growth in a green economy and that as other countries are moving toward that, Canada should be too.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question. I really appreciate the fact that he recognized how well the economy is doing in an NDP-led province. That kind of thing is always good to hear.

I fully agree with what he said about potential. In 2014, the World Bank calculated the impact of low-carbon economy policies in several parts of the world and concluded that such policies could be worth between $1.8 trillion and $2.6 trillion worldwide per year in 2030 because of new jobs, agricultural productivity, and lower public health costs.

Transitioning to a low-carbon economy is a good thing, and I think this initiative is a good step forward. I wish the Liberals were more consistent, but we can talk about that some other time. The NDP sees this as a step in the right direction.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to share my time with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who always gives passionate, well-informed speeches that are based on facts and science. When we debate a subject, he always takes to time to do the research to enlighten us.

What is rather unfortunate about the motion before us today is that the Conservatives are focusing on one aspect of access to information and transparency, whereas there is another aspect, which is putting a price on carbon, which is very beneficial. It benefits not just the economy and the environment, but human health and the health of the planet. We keep saying that climate change and the environment is the number one issue for our generation and for all human beings on the planet. It seems that we are not doing enough in that regard. Still, the government boasts about taking action and putting Canada back on the map with the Paris Agreement.

However, there is a stack of international and national reports that point to the Liberals' inaction. In a 2017 report, for example, the OECD states, among other things, that there was no plan for public transit and the electrification of transportation and that we do not have a general environmental assessment process. “In 2012, following revision of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the number of projects subject to environmental assessment (EA) at the federal level decreased significantly.” The Liberals promised to review environmental assessments, which still has not been done. The report also mentions a lack of innovation.

Despite a generally strong innovation culture, Canada files far fewer environmental patents per capita than leading OECD countries. Its share of the global clean technology market has fallen since 2005. A relatively large share (8%) of public investment in research and development (R&D) targets the energy sector. Within this percentage, a large share supports the environmental performance of fossil fuel extraction and processing.

The Liberals continue to give funding and subsidies to the fossil fuel industry to the tune of $1.6 billion a year. This makes no sense at all, if the goal is to reduce our ecological footprint and leave a healthy planet for our children and future generations. This is not the direction the government should be taking.

The government had set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020. Since we will not be able to achieve that, the government extended the target deadline to 2030. Even with that change, the OECD report predicts that we will not meet those objectives. In addition to the OECD report, the environment commissioner's reports also reiterate that we will not meet those targets. On top of that, the Liberals have not developed a government-wide plan. Of the 19 federal departments studied, 14 have no plan for adapting to climate change, and this includes Environment Canada. I find that a little ironic. The government also has no strategy for developing ways to assess the improvements that will be made in each department. It does not have a comprehensive plan for federal departments to work together. Instead, they are working in silos. Why is there no overarching vision? This is 2018, and we keep saying that climate change is of the utmost importance. It makes no sense.

The people of Salaberry—Suroît are worried about these kinds of things. We had a town hall meeting in January on the importance of making the green shift. In my region, Soulanges already has three pipelines running through its territory. People are very worried.

In a recent media release, people from Montreal and other areas called on the government to require oil companies to have an emergency plan in order to protect our drinking water intakes. Not one of the 27 drinking water intakes along the Ottawa River all the way to the greater Montreal area is equipped with an oil content monitor. It would take at least an hour and a half for the company to arrive on location. In the meantime, a tremendous amount of oil would end up in our drinking water and it would take less than 12 hours for it to reach peoples' taps in Montreal. Clearly, some measures have been entirely overlooked.

As far as climate change is concerned, we have talked about the cost of inaction. The national round table on the environment and the economy, which was put in place by the Conservatives at the time, issued a report in 2011 stating that the impact of doing nothing could cost the country up to $5 billion a year by 2020 and between $21 billion and $43 billion by 2050 depending on the scenario. That number could even reach $91 billion if absolutely nothing is done. This is a disaster. Last year, rising waters caused flooding in several regions, including mine, Vaudreuil-Soulanges, and the Upper St. Lawrence. That flooding cost and continues to cost thousands of dollars to countless families who are unable to sell or renovate their homes. It is tough.

Furthermore, communities all around the world could face hurricanes and flooding. Climate change could wipe entire islands off the face of the earth. This is an extremely serious issue, and unless something is done, humans and animals will pay the price. Fortunately, citizen initiatives are helping us understand that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. This is something the government keeps saying over and over, but without following through. For example, in Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Comité 21, an organization founded by Lorraine Simard, brings together businesses, municipalities, community groups, and the media to promote sustainable development practices. For instance, it is working on the circular economy, where certain companies use waste materials generated by other companies. This transforms waste into a useful material for others at a lower cost, reducing waste at the source.

There are also other initiatives, such as the “zero waste” movement, which is popular among young people. A local woman named Cindy Trottier created a “zero waste” logo for companies across Quebec that reuse containers in order to avoid plastic containers and other items that end up in the trash. We have only to think of laundry detergent bottles and food packaging. For example, mesh bags get reused. These are citizen initiatives that are helping us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2014, for the first time in Parliament's history, the NDP hosted a forum on clean energy and industry that drew 150 environmental and economic experts, along with industry representatives and public policy-makers. What the forum found was that Canada had no public policy that would ensure fair competition among industries.

Many businesses have already followed suit and are finding innovative ways of lowering their greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time growing and creating jobs. However, Canada does not encourage them. Céline Bak, from the Canadian Clean Technology Coalition, said that 20% of workers in the renewable energy sector were under the age of 30. Job growth in this sector is at 6%, and growth is skyrocketing in the global marketplace. In 2014, 800,000 companies offered clean solutions, and Canadian SMEs were investing in research and development.

Measures are already being taken, but the government is simply not doing enough. It lacks transparency in the information it makes available. The Conservatives should expand their scope to include all of these aspects. Putting a price on carbon is good for public health, for the environment, and for the economy.

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I applaud the member for her speech, and I would agree with her that the biggest challenge facing our future is climate change and its effects, not only on our population today but on our population moving forward.

Our government is moving forward on a price on carbon and investing in universities, investing in transportation, and investing in a national housing strategy, all with components of climate resiliency in them, yet the member states that we are not doing enough.

To do more, we have to have a strong economy and a strong environment. I look at the Kinder Morgan pipeline and how that will bring in approximately $15 billion a year in added revenue. We can use that to continue to invest and do more. In a sense, to do more, we have to have a strong economy and examples like that. We need to have development to ensure that we can actually have reductions in climate change and more government involvement.