Debates of May 30th, 2018

Bill C-47—Time Allocation Motion

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #686

Export and Import Permits Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from May 29 consideration of Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motion in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege it is to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-57. I might begin by saying that—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I want to help out the hon. member by asking members to take their conversations out into the lobbies. I am sure the hon. member for Perth—Wellington will appreciate it.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know all members are excited and intrigued to hear my commentary on Bill C-57. Why should we not be excited about debating in the House of Commons?

However, what is disappointing is that we are debating C-57, once again, under the guillotine of time allocation. In the last 48 hours, the Liberal government has used time allocation or closure on four separate bills or motions. Indeed one parliamentary expert on Twitter has referred to this fiasco as the closure supercluster of 2018. How many more closure or time allocation motions will it take before the Liberal government has a super-duper closure cluster of 2018? It is certainly well on its way to doing so.

We are into night sittings. We are here debating until midnight. We just had a time allocation vote at about 7:45 at night.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I was trying to hear the hon. member and I was having a hard time. I am sure everybody else wants to hear him.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the encouragement. I know hon. members may want to hear what I have to say on this matter.

We are into the last week of May and the final four weeks of our sitting. However, the Liberal government has wasted and squandered its parliamentary session. Now, as the deadline of the summer recess approaches, the Liberals are trying to ram through bills on the threat and guillotine of time allocation and closure, and that is wrong. Canadians expect us to come to this place and have a fulsome debate on things that matter to them, yet we have time allocation and closure time and after time.

We are sitting until midnight, and I am happy to do so. I think all members here are willing to put in their time and do that work. However, I have to question how the Liberal government, which claims to be a family-friendly government and wants to see Parliament be a little more family friendly, thinks that having a vote at 7:45 at night is family friendly. Granted, as the father of an 11 day old, I am certainly used to being awake at all hours of the night, so it is not so bad. I would be happy to debate anyone at three o'clock in the morning if anyone is awake at that time.

Here we are in an evening sitting debating bills that clearly the government could have called and worked on. The bill before us has had relatively limited debate here at report stage. However, we, as the opposition, will be supporting Bill C-57, both at report stage and as it goes forward. I do want to commend our shadow minister, the member for Abbotsford, for his hard work on the bill. He was exceptionally eloquent when he spoke to the bill earlier in the session.

As Conservatives, we certainly believe in increased accountability. We are supporting the bill because it would provide a measure of increased accountability and increased reporting to Parliament. At the end of the day, Parliament is the ultimate arbiter. Therefore, providing that additional information and analysis to Parliament is important. The bill, with the amendment, would have a mandatory reporting requirement on a variety of matters, including environmental, economic, and social decision-making, and have that reported to Parliament.

As well, there are new enforcements. As Conservatives, we have always supported sustainable development. Many of our colleagues have been passionate about this matter and have spoken in and out of the House on it. Many of our colleagues have worked on this issue in the private sector and in their private lives for a number of years.

However, we do have some concerns with the bill. We have challenges with the increased number of paid advisory positions. These positions could be done on a voluntary basis. Unfortunately the bill would put paid advisory positions in the act. It is unfortunate, but at the same time it is something we will manage to deal with in supporting the bill.

It is a great opportunity as well to highlight that the amendment to the bill would be amending a bill that was first introduced in this place in 2008. At that time, it was introduced by our former colleague, the Hon. John Baird. This is an opportunity to highlight the good work that was done by Mr. Baird in his time as minister of the environment and the good work done by other Conservative environment ministers, including the member for Thornhill, who did an exceptional job during his time as minister of the environment.

As I said, we will be supporting Bill C-57. We are willing to see it move forward through report stage and third reading. If we look at our Conservative record on this bill, we supported the recommendations of the committee report that looked at the amendments to the legislation. We supported the committee report entitled “Federal Sustainability for Future Generations – A Report Following an Assessment of the Federal Sustainable development Act”. Sometimes we have reports with exciting titles, and this one rolls off the tip of the tongue and provides an exceptional basis from which to work.

I want to say a little about this committee report, and committee reports in general. Committees work best when they do so on a consensus basis. This was one of those reports that was achieved with a degree of consensus and reported back to the House with multi-partisan support. It is important that we, as the opposition, are able to do that. The challenge, however, is that so many committees are not working that way. We see that right now in the procedure and House affairs committee. We see the Liberal government trying to ram through changes to Canada's Elections Act without debate, without analysis, and without the time to fully hear from witnesses and to introduce amendments based on deliberations on the information from those witnesses. We should be hearing from Canadians on that matter. We should be hearing what they think is important when it comes to Canada's elections. We should be hearing how this issue will affect them on the ground, in their communities, at polling booths.

There will be an election in Ontario next Thursday. We should at least, as parliamentarians, be able to hear some of the stories and some of the options that have come out of that provincial election and the impact they may have on our federal legislation. We should be able to hear lessons learned and how they could benefit and improve that piece of legislation. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The Liberals are intent on ramming through legislation, ramming it through committee, and enforcing it with limited debate on this important matter.

That was not the case with Bill C-57. There was a previous committee report that analyzed this issue. However, now, when we have the opportunity to debate this at report stage, we have the guillotine. We have forced time allocation. Indeed, tonight we can only debate this issue for another 40 minutes. I have already used up eight or nine minutes of that time. There are only about 32 minutes left for members of the House to debate this piece of legislation. That is unfortunate, because I know that many of my colleagues could speak on this issue at great length, for the full 10 minutes of their time, or perhaps longer if they were given that time. However, unfortunately, we are being constrained to about 31 minutes to debate this issue. That is wrong.

I see I am down to one minute now to finish my comments. I am reminded of a famous writer who said that he did not have time to write a short letter, so he wrote a long letter instead. I feel like I am in the middle of a long speech, and I am being cut off early. I am so disappointed that the Liberals are cutting off debate on Bill C-57.

To conclude, the Conservative opposition will be supporting the bill at report stage, but under great duress, because we have been forced to debate this within the confines of time allocation, which is truly unfortunate. I look forward to questions from hon. members on this important matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way said he is prepared to continue the debate until 3 o'clock in the morning. It is interesting that he would make that kind of comment, when just a couple of hours ago, the Conservative Party voted that we stop working for the day. I suspect that he might be a minority of the caucus and that he lost that vote in the back room.

Having said that, I would really appreciate a better understanding of something. The member for Abbotsford, the person he gave credit to, moved a Conservative amendment at committee. He got the committee membership to support the amendment, and it passed. Now the bill is before us at report stage, and what did the member for Abbotsford do? He moved another amendment to delete the amendment he moved in committee. It does not make any sense whatsoever. I wonder if my colleague and friend can explain why the member for Abbotsford moved the amendment in the first place, if they do not want it in at report stage.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we actually call that move a Lamoureux. It is not the member's name. It is just a general term we use.

I just want to clarify the record. The member for Abbotsford did not move such a motion at committee, and that should be on the record. However, it does give me an opportunity to talk about the member for Abbotsford, who is one of the hardest-working members of our caucus. It is he who is holding these Liberals to account on important issues, like the Liberals ramming a carbon tax down the throats of Canadians. It is the member for Abbotsford who brought home the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, one of the things the Liberals tried to mess up, and nearly did. It is thanks to that member, who brought home that important trade deal, expanding our markets. It is that hon. member who deserves a lot of credit for all the good work we did on the trade file.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised the matter of committees in general and the experience of committees.

This committee worked on a consensus basis. Other committees sometimes do not. The previous intervention talked about other votes that have taken place. I wonder if this member could maybe explain to the member for Winnipeg North, or anyone else here, that these events do not happen in isolation.

What is going on at PROC right now is a disgrace. It is shameful. There are repercussions. We only have limited tools as an opposition, limited tools to deal with a government that is determined to unilaterally act against the best interests of Canadian voters by changing the system without the consent of other parties.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. These events do not happen in isolation. The vote to adjourn earlier today was a matter of protest against the heavy hand of the Liberal government.

Let us see what the Liberal government has done. It introduced Motion No. 6 in June 2016 to basically take away all the tools of the opposition. Last spring, it introduced, and tried to ram through, changes to the Standing Orders unilaterally, forcing a three-week filibuster in the procedure and House affairs committee, not to disrupt but to preserve the rights and privileges of parliamentarians. That is what we are here to do. It is our right and duty to defend those rights.

Now we see it happening once again in the procedure and House affairs committee. The Liberals have tried to introduce a motion with a guillotine, forcing limited debate, next to no debate, in fact, and forcing amendments to be tabled before we have even finished hearing from witnesses. We have not even heard from any witnesses outside of departmental officials. We heard a limited response from the minister. We are still waiting for responses from the minister on how she bungled the appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer. The government made one appointment, and then it appointed someone else, with virtually no consultation other than a letter saying that this was who they were nominating. That is wrong.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting debate in that there are rare occasions when I agree with the government. There are elements of Bill C-57 I am in agreement with, but I am going to talk about some concerns about the ideological creep of the Liberal Party into the legislation of Canada. By “ideological creep”, I do not refer to any hon. members. I refer to a creeping barrage of ideology that is actually not rooted in science. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change is seemingly unaware of global concerns with respect to some of the things being put in legislation.

Why I agree with elements of Bill C-57 is that they are rooted in the work of the last Conservative government. In 2008, as my colleague from Perth—Wellington mentioned, the Conservative government passed it. There was a lot of good work done by John Baird at that time, and it has been continued. That is the basis of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. It is based on the sustainable development goals the United Nations started with the Rio declaration, right through to the UN agenda 2030. We certainly see a benefit to many social and economic considerations going into the sustainable development goals of a country.

When looking at an environmental plan, considering economic aspects of that plan, the impact on communities, and social development is prudent as one is planning. There are many departments within the federal government planning to meet the sustainable development goals articulated by the UN, and they are coming up with plans to do that.

I would note that the government has appointed a commissioner, who I wish well in her role, Ms. Julie Gelfand. We all wish her well in terms of working with federal government departments, particularly the Department of National Defence, which has large tracts of green space and lands in Canada, to make sure that we minimize the impact on the environment, make our operations sustainable, and operate with the future in mind of handing over the country we inherited to our children. There is a lot of agreement on that, and I will agree with those goals in this legislation.

I have three areas of concern I am going to keep my remarks to, because I do not like spending too much time on agreement with Liberals in this place. My friends will start questioning my loyalty.

The first area is the typical Liberal approach. There has been concern expressed by my colleague, the member for Abbotsford, and others that it seems the minister is going to continue to expand the paid advisory councils the government will rely upon. We know, going back to the days explored by Justice Gomery, that when there are gatherings of advisers, on a range of issues, being paid and being dependent on contracts and the goodwill of the government, it actually breeds a lack of accountability. We have already seen that, with the Prime Minister being the first sitting prime minister in Canada to have been found to have violated ethics legislation that governs this case. The finance minister has two pending investigations.

We do not think there should be that approach, with these friends of the Liberals being paid advisers. That should be arm's length, and we should rely upon Ms. Gelfand and her department to provide that advice. We have exceptional civil servants, so I do not like the approach we see the Liberals resorting to too often.

I commented that there are elements I said I agree with in Bill C-57. They are certainly rooted in the work done by the Conservative government, such as instilling the polluters pay principle and a number of tangible things that will have benefits. They will show that everyone in our country, including corporations, will need to be good and responsible stewards, and those principles enshrine that.

However, there has been a lot of window dressing from the government when it comes to the environment. We almost groan when we hear the minister say that the environment and the economy go together. It has just become rote language. However, I want to show how it is now also window dressing.

The minister herself said, in debate on Bill C-57, that the bill “would shift focus in the Federal Sustainable Development Act from planning” to reporting results. If we are looking at reporting results when it comes to our environmental goals and sustainable development, what were the comments of Julie Gelfand in her first appearance at committee on Bill C-57, and later, her comments with respect to the government's environmental plan?

If we are trying to say reporting results is what the government wants through this legislation, what did the Commissioner for Sustainable Development report on the government's progress on the environment? Here is her report on results:

We concluded that Environment and Climate Change Canada...measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions contained in this plan had yet to be implemented.

She went on to confirm that the government “did not make progress” with respect to any of its greenhouse gas emission targets. This is another case of the Liberals talking a very good game—whether in legislation, whether in debate outside of the chamber—but if we look at results, which is what the minister wants the bill to do for all departments of the federal government, we see they are failing. The commissioner actually reported a failing grade to the government.

If we combine that with the Auditor General's most recent report, which says that under this government there is basically no ability to implement projects, it should concern all Canadians. I know it concerns many of the civil servants who have had trouble getting paid and families having to help out their children, but it is a fundamental thing when the Auditor General in such strong language calls out the Liberals' inability to actually implement projects.

I hope the minister moves beyond the rhetoric of “the environment and the economy go together”, because we want to see results. Rhetoric we get enough of. We want to actually see some tangible results, and if Bill C-57 can do that, I am very happy that it will be part of our sustainable development discussion for the next number of years.

My final concern is the ideological creep that I see with the government, because in a similar fashion to Bill C-55 on the oceans act, this bill also creeps the precautionary principle into federal legislation. The old approach of the Conservative government enshrined the polluter pay model, and it is very obvious what that is: if there is an impact on our environment that is negative and it is clear who the polluter is, the polluter will pay to remediate that impact on our environment. The polluter pay principle is in this legislation, but Liberals are inserting the precautionary principle, and that is troubling because it is pseudoscience. The precautionary principle actually says, “Let us not wait until we have final scientific evidence to make public policy; let us just make it if we feel good.”

I will illustrate this with a quote. I know the front bench of the Liberal Party enjoyed their trip to see President Obama. They were downright giddy. What did Obama's chief scientific adviser say about the precautionary principle? He said that the precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent.

If we are talking about sustainable development and goals, we should be talking about science-based evidence. That was something the Liberals used to say in opposition a lot, but now in several pieces of federal legislation they are enshrining a policy principle that is not rooted in science. It is rooted in rhetorical appeal. It is rooted in feeling good. It is virtue-signalling, something we see every day from the government.

We should see a science-based approach. Whether it comes to sustainable development, our oceans, or marijuana, we should not be legislating and regulating because of an ideological view. While I support the goals of Bill C-57, it is this creeping barrage of Liberal ideology that they are secretly inserting into things. They have a condescension of the left that is troubling to people who have worked in the private sector, people who rely on science and evidence, as I do. Their attitude is that if we do not agree with them, we are somehow un-Canadian, or wrong, or as the Prime Minister says, we are being partisan. Is it partisan to ask for science before making decisions?

I would say in overall support that I am happy that there are elements to work together on, but I would like to alert Canadians to this ideological creep of the Liberal Party, which will set Canada back in the long term.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always enlightening to hear the hon. member for Durham speak in this place, particularly when it comes to sustainability. I am very interested in his reading of sustainability.

The member mentioned an ideological creep. I am thinking about the global 2030 agenda, which Canada signed on to under our government but which really was ignored under the previous government, and the United Nations 17 sustainable development goals that we are also following. Personally, I have triple bottom-line goals as I manage my constituency work, my work on the Hill, and having a net-zero office and things like that around social, environmental, and economic sustainability.

In this bill, we are looking at moving from 26 government organizations, departments, and agencies to over 90 federal development agencies that will have to act together in working on common interests toward sustainable solutions. I wonder whether the hon. member thinks that working with the United Nations standard is good, or whether it is better just to fudge it through, the way the previous government was doing.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I think Canada should govern on its own, and where we can work collectively with multilateral organizations, including the UN, we should, and we should take some guidance and some education from them and share in a number of goals.

However, I have seen, including in the debate on Bill C-47 today, that the Liberals, in their pursuit of the Security Council seat, almost seem willing to outsource our legislative agenda to another body. I would remind the member that this month the UN committee on disarmament is going to be chaired by Syria. The only country to actually use chemical weapons is now chairing the body to prevent the use of chemical weapons.

What we should do is work on the sustainable development goals, but also take ownership of our own house. The polluter pay principle does that.

When it comes to the 90 agencies the member mentioned, I do have some concerns. When the Auditor General says that the government cannot manage a project in a fashion that would be acceptable to the levels set by the Auditor General, we should be worried when we are foisting more challenges on more departments. Therefore, while I share the sustainable development goals we have, my concern is we have to be able to deliver. We own our own responsibility, and we should not think that signing on to something globally negates our ability to legislate here in Canada.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with my colleague's comments on not only this bill but some of the rhetoric, I wonder if he has some concerns that the only thing we are hearing with regard to the environment is the reduction of greenhouse gases and climate change.

While those aspects are very important, we are not hearing anything about clean air, clean land, or clean water. There seems to be a total absence in that regard.

Let me just give one example of why that is important. We focused on noxious gases and particulate in the air because 6,000 to 8,000 Canadians die every year because of bad air. We had a significant reduction in particulate and in noxious and SOx gases, to the degree that when the member for Don Valley West was the president of the Asthma Society of Canada, he confided in me and said that our government was doing a very good job at reducing particulate.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the one-sided aspect of the environment that the current government focuses on. We had to come in after 20 years and finally clean up the Sydney tar ponds and finally deal with the number one hotspot in the Great Lakes in Hamilton. We finally got the job done. I am just wondering if the member has a concern about a holistic approach to environment.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Flamborough—Glanbrook is passionate and knowledgeable, and he is absolutely right. The environment is more than just GHG target goals, which can be met in two ways. They can do it the wrong way, which is taxing seniors and people who have to commute, or they can work on stepping down the emissions of large emitters, a much more practical way that is not a carbon tax. However, the Liberals seem focused entirely on a tax.

That ignores entirely particulate matter, hazardous chemicals, and cleanup of sites such as Sydney and in our Arctic. It ignores sustainable practices in wildlife and in forestry. We should be proud of an entire and total environmental package. That should be part of our sustainable development goals, not just as a nation but as a society.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be joining the debate on Bill C-57, although I must agree with my Conservative colleagues that it is unfortunate to be doing it under the yoke of time allocation.

It is a strategy that the federal government seems to be employing quite a bit this week. I was having an exchange with the member for Perth—Wellington earlier today about this resembling a student who has missed the due date for his homework and has suddenly realized it is coming up and he had better rush things. We have been wasting time over February, March, April, and May, and now we are almost into June. If we look at the parliamentary calendar, we see that time is suddenly short, so the Liberals are feeling the need to engage in these draconian tactics to limit the ability of members to be here on behalf of their constituents. Every single one of these seats represents a unique geographic area of Canada, and the people of Canada deserve to have their voices and concerns raised in this House by the members who represent them.

That said, let us now turn to the bill before us, Bill C-57.

I want to compliment my friend and colleague, the member for the riding of Edmonton Strathcona. She has decades of experience in the field of environmental sustainability. When she speaks to our caucus or delivers speeches in this House or at committee, people listen, because they realize this member has the experience and the knowledge. Very rarely have I seen people contradict her, because they know that she is usually right. She has the experience to back it up.

I want to walk the House through a bit of the history of how we got to Bill C-57. We would have to go back to the spring of 2016, when the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development reviewed the current act. There is a mandate in the act that it has to be reviewed every certain number of years. I believe it is every three years. That is just to make sure that it is staying up to date with the changing nature of Canada, to see if we are meeting our goals or if anything needs to be tweaked, and to see if the government has been doing a good job in following the existing act. That is why it is important.

As a part of this review, the committee, as committees usually do, brought forth witnesses to testify with respect to the current act and present some recommendations for ideas for reform. Witnesses at the committee found the current act lacking in two important ways. First, unlike the definition of “sustainable development”, it focuses on environmental decision-making and ignores the social and economic pillars of sustainable development; second, the purpose is about transparency and accountability for environmental decision-making, rather than about advancing sustainable development. The committee agreed with those significant shortcomings and recommended that the act be amended to require the development of an effective federal strategy that will inspire, in equal measure, environmental, social, and economic advancement toward a better future, something I think that all members in this House can very much agree to.

The unfortunate thing with the bill before us, Bill C-57, is that it only partially addresses these deficiencies and recommendations. It is important to note that the updated law should reflect the broader UN sustainable development goals, which have been endorsed by Canada.

I want to list some key things that came about after that study, because when Bill C-57 made it to the committee, the Liberal government did not even listen to its own members of Parliament on that committee. It did not even listen to the recommendations that had come from the environment committee. That is a real shame, because suddenly we have Liberals recommending something, only to see their government completely ignore it. That action shows that the government is not committed to delivering on its commitments under the broad UN sustainable development goal to ensure the whole of government ensures that its laws and policies reflect environmental, social, and economic needs.

I want to drill down on that, because the member for Edmonton Strathcona really was faced with a Herculean task. Many of my colleagues who sit on committees know this. Since the NDP has just one spot on a 10-member committee, that one member does not have the luxury of teamwork with other MPs. The work often falls upon us, so when it comes to the amending stage of a bill, the clause-by-clause part of a bill, it is a pretty big task.

I can remember doing that last year at the justice committee when I was the justice critic for our party, especially when it came to Bill C-46. That was a gargantuan justice bill, and my staff and I were pretty busy on that.

Going back to the matter at hand, Bill C-57, almost all of the amendments by the member for Edmonton Strathcona at committee were based on three things: recommendations from the Commissioner of the Environment, recommendations from expert witness testimony at the committee, and recommendations from the committee itself.

She had three very good arguments behind her recommendations. What did the Liberal-dominated committee do? It voted down those amendments, flying in the face of the evidence. The government likes to pride itself on evidence-based decision-making. I have yet to hear a coherent answer from the government side as to why the Liberals did that to the amendments of the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, when they knew she has years of experience and that her amendments were based on solid evidence. We have still not received any good reasons on that.

The House voted today, historically I might add, for Bill C-262, which was moved by my hon. colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. It was a historic moment for the House of Commons, because that private member's bill passed third reading and commits the federal government to ensuring that all laws are in compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

One of the amendments by the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona was to ensure that Bill C-57 actually included a reference to UNDRIP. However, that was voted down. Then the Liberals decided they would vote in favour of the bill that is now going to mandate adherence to UNDRIP. Canadians should try to work their way through the reasoning behind that. I am still having some problems doing it.

That said, UNDRIP has passed this House. It is going to the other place now. I wish senators well. I certainly hope they will look at the hard work we did here in the House of Commons that recognize that in 2018, we are at a place in this great country where we can no longer afford to play the role of a colonizer. We have to make sure that first nations in Canada are the full and equal partners they very much deserve to be. It is only when we make sure that all of our federal laws recognize that implicitly that we will be able to move beyond our past—never forgetting it, but moving beyond it—to a place where most people would like us to be.

I know that my time on this bill is short, so I just want to end with this. The day that the Minister of Environment moved time allocation on this bill was Tuesday, the very day the Liberal government announced it was purchasing the Kinder Morgan pipeline for $4.5 billion. That is just the price tag for the existing infrastructure. There is no word on the cost of expanding the pipeline. I just think that when the environment minister is moving to shut down debate on a bill that seeks to bring federal departments in compliance with sustainable development goals and yet buys a pipeline, which is infrastructure that rightly belongs in the 20th century, it makes a mockery of the government's real commitment to addressing climate change.

I would dearly like to know what federal department is going to be in control of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, and how it can possibly justify its sustainable development when it is going to be operating something that makes a mockery of our climate change commitments.

This being 2018, with all of the evidence of climate change all around us, we certainly need this country to be taking a firm and strong direction in addressing climate change. I think everyone who looks to future generations knows that we owe them that at this moment in time.

I will conclude there. I have appreciated this opportunity to speak to Bill C-57. I welcome questions and comments from my colleagues and friends.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by congratulating the member, along with all members of the House, for gaining a share of the Trans Mountain pipeline. We are all owners together now of a project that would have been profitable had the government just stayed out of the way and provided certainty to the company who owned it before.

Members often disagree in the House. We on this side of the House are Conservatives who believe in a free market and think there is a way to manage the balance between the economy and the environment. We are talking tonight about the Federal Sustainable Development Act. New Democrats have a different point of view on reaching that fine balance. Does the member feel that this legislation finds that balance?

What does the member think of the government now being in the potential business of exporting oil sands energy to the west coast, all the while talking a good game about promoting environmental stewardship, which I think is quite possible? Obviously the member has a different point of view as a New Democrat. Could he comment further on this dichotomy that has been created by the Liberals?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we in the NDP do have different views on why this is a bad idea.

What I will say to workers in Alberta, my brother being one of them involved in the industry, is that stopping the Kinder Morgan expansion will not stop the oil sands from working right now, and no one in the House wants that.

Furthermore, Kinder Morgan was devised at a time when oil prices were around $100 a barrel. It is exporting diluted bitumen, which is the rawest form of the product, and we are not getting any value for this. If we want our oil industry to be sustainable, then we should sell it for the most value possible, not bargain basement prices.

If we are going to talk about Canada's energy security as a country, it does not involve building a pipeline that will direct exports to China. This will not in any way lead to Canada's energy security. That makes a mockery of the government's sustainable development goals, especially in light of Bill C-57.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot in the House about the carbon tax. Some people have said it is going to create sustainability, that it is going to do this or that. I would like the member's personal view on that.

From what we have seen in the last couple of days with $4.5 billion going to Kinder Morgan and things like that, does the member think that the government is going to take the money from the carbon tax and put it into technologies that will make development more sustainable? Many Canadians are hoping that is what the government will do with their hard-earned dollars. Does the member think the government will put that money aside, or does he believe the money will just go into the coffers and be ill-spent?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of discussion about the carbon tax at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We heard from a lot of witnesses, farmers in particular, who are quite concerned about the impact the carbon tax will have on their operations. I very much empathize with those farmers.

For those who are in industries and businesses that are still very reliant on fossil fuels for their operations, I think there is a way to design the carbon tax to mitigate the worst effects on them while also respecting the need to put a price on pollution. Putting higher prices on this starts to change the conversation. I am from Vancouver Island and gas is selling at $1.50 a litre there. That certainly has led to my constituents thinking about how fast they can get an electric car, because they say these prices are killing them.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate in this late hour on Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. Of course, as other members have said, including the member for Abbotsford, we will be supporting this piece of legislation.

In preparing for the debate, I went through past commentary by other members, including the member for Abbotsford, and really, what else is there to add? He went over every single point and report that rebutted many of the talking points the Liberal government has put forward in defending its environmental record and so-called achievements. They are achievements in name, mostly. He went through it very well, so there is really nothing more I can contribute in illuminating the debate in that sense.

However, there is one part of it that I do want to delve into and spend more time on. It is the part where the member for Abbotsford referenced a report, which, in his words, “is supposed to marry the environment and the economy”. He questioned why the government had completely forgotten about the economic component. He said it was unbelievable, and I agree with him.

We have heard time and time again in the House this metaphor alluding to the economy and the environment going hand in hand. All I have seen so far is posturing by the Liberals when it comes to the environment, and very little focus on the economy. We have seen over the past two and a half years one thing happen, and one thing only, which is this two-handed concept. Why are both of those hands in my pockets? Both hands are in the pockets of taxpayers.

On one side are carbon taxes. On one side is a higher cost of living, so-called, to pay for environmental reasons and environmental targets, so-called. At the end of the day, it is always about more revenue. On the other side are higher small business taxes, higher payroll taxes, or higher taxes period, across the board, with a higher cost of living for most Canadians today. Think tanks have said this. Independent reports have said this, and I am sure every single member of the House could attest to the fact that they have received emails, letters, and phone calls from constituents who are saying that the cost of living has gone up significantly.

Why are both of those hands, supposedly the economy and the environment, when managed by the federal government, the Ottawa Liberals, in the pockets of taxpayers? They are in our pockets. Everyone in Canada is paying more because of the government's decision-making. There are job losses in the energy sector.

I know that members hear all the time that Statistics Canada is saying that the job numbers are better. However, the comparison is being made between the loss of an engineering job paying maybe $150,000 to $200,000 in Calgary and then maybe a job working in retail for $50,000.

What about underemployment? It is something that Statistics Canada and stats in general have a very difficult time catching. I can give example after example in my own riding in Calgary, and even wider than the Calgary area, of individuals who have been impacted by the drastic slowdown in the energy sector, which was initially caused by lower prices, and then prolonged by bad government policy, both provincially and federally, making things far worse for far longer than they needed to be.

I have heard the debate in the House thus far on Bill C-57, including an exchange earlier today. Members know that I like Yiddish proverbs. One of them is “What you don't see with your eyes, don't invent with your tongue”. I see this happening on that side of the House all the time. They make it up as they go along.

This brings me to the next point, which I will spend some more time on. The Trans Mountain pipeline is the perfect example of this. Supposedly, in the name of getting it right and finding the right balance between the economy and the environment, the only way the Liberals can do this is by expropriating Kinder Morgan and forcing the company. It would have been one of the most profitable portions of the energy sector to transport the goods to the market. The Liberals made it unprofitable by getting in the way at every single junction, and by undermining the legitimate process by which a company, shareholders, and members of the public can arrive at a reasonable decision. They can disagree without being disagreeable through a regulator, define approval, and move the project forward.

Instead, with the encouragement of the federal government, the Liberals on that side, protesters, third-party groups, many foreign-funded, then went out and undermined the rule of law and the legal process by which the pipeline was approved. Now we have a situation.

The economy and the environment supposedly go hand in hand. However, both of the government's federal hands are now taking Kinder Morgan's pipeline. The Liberals are saying that in the name of getting it built, the only thing they can do, the only way we can get it done is by taking on 100% of the risk for $4.5 billion, and that is just to buy the old pipeline. Now we are talking about building the actual pipeline expansion itself.

However, the court proceedings will still go ahead. The obstruction of a provincial government will still continue. The obstruction of a legally-approved pipeline will continue to go ahead, because nothing has changed. We have seen it in the media, with quote after quote from protester leaders, from certain but not all indigenous groups, and from civic leaders who say they will continue to oppose it, that it makes no difference. However, now every one of us is on the hook for cost overruns, for cost failures, for potential strikes, for workers' health and safety, and for the extra spending to ensure they can work in a safe environment while they build this pipeline, even if it goes ahead.

This $4.5 billion that the Canadian taxpayer is giving to the shareholders of Kinder Morgan Canada is going to do what? It is going to go and finance competitor pipelines. The state of Texas will become the largest producer of oil in the world. I always joke about the state of Texas. I call it “Alberta Junior”. That is what it is to me in my heart. Texas calls us in the reverse. So many Canadians who worked in the energy sector in Calgary, Edmonton, and Fort McMurray are working there today.

Where was that focus on getting the environment and the economy right? Did that involve the brain drain, the escape, the exile, of tens of thousands of Canadian energy workers to Dallas and Houston? Was that the purpose? Is that how we get the balance right? The Liberals failed miserably, despite this legislation, which we will support.

As I mentioned, what our eyes do not see, do not invent with our tongues, but they are inventing. The Liberals are inventing a narrative that simply does not exist, because they do not have the balance right. They did not get it right with the economy and the environment. If they did, they would not be getting into the business of owning and operating a pipeline.

Seven thousand kilometres of pipeline has been cancelled under the Liberals' watch, not our watch. They are the ones who failed to achieve it. They are the ones who did not get it to move forward. However, now they will be able to build their own pipeline. The future health of the Alberta government's finances now rest in the hands of the federal government, which is a position I guarantee 90% of Albertans will be against.

We are adamantly against it, because we have seen this type of behaviour before, 40 years ago with the national energy plan. This is the second version of it, getting it wrong again. The Liberals do not know where to find the balance between the two. They will continue to back their allies in the environmental movement, the activists, and those who they continuously back in illegal activities because they need their help to win elections.

We will support this proposed legislation. However, on the continuous use of the environment and the economy go hand in hand, the Liberals actually have to live it and they have to do it. Buying pipelines, expropriating pipelines, is not the way to achieve it. We should never have been in the position where the taxpayer of Canada would have to be on the hook for up to $12 billion of new spending.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the speech by my colleague from Calgary Shepard, who adroitly set out to deconstruct that worn-out Liberal platitude about the environment and the economy going hand in had. It is patently obvious that they do, because we human beings come from the environment, our resources come from the environment, and the economy comes from the environment.

The economy is both a process and a product of the environment we live in. The resources we export, such as oil, are natural resources that come from the environment. The Liberals' platitude is purely political PR.

As I recall, under the Conservative government, we did not sweet-talk anyone. We took concrete action that produced excellent results. For example, we reduced Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 2% while we grew the GDP by 16%.

I would like the member for Calgary Shepard to tell us more about the strides our government made on both the environmental and economic fronts.