Debates of May 8th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Carbon Pricing

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the minister, she seems to see incredulity as a replacement for substantive argument. I have a very specific question for the minister. If she thinks that the government's policy is a good one, a defensible one, and that she can make that case to Canadians, then why can Canadians not see the numbers? If, as she seems to believe, the truth of her position is self-evident, then why can she not remove the blackouts on the carbon tax information and what we have called the carbon tax cover-up? Why can she not show people the evidence that she finds so compelling? Why does she need to resort to incredulity and pejoratives instead of simply showing the information and making the argument?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we released a report last week that was very clear. Putting a price on pollution works. It reduces emissions at low cost. It also does that while still growing the economy. We can see that provinces like British Columbia, which have a price on pollution, have been able to reduce emissions and also grow their economy. That is exactly what we want to do.

Just yesterday in the finance committee, every single presenter, except for a former minister under the Harper government, actually understood that carbon pricing is the most effective tool to reduce emissions. That is why we are moving forward. We are going to continue taking action to tackle climate change, and we are going to continue taking action to create good jobs.

The incredulity I have is that the party opposite does not understand that climate change is real, and that it is having a real impact. We need a serious plan, because that is what Canadians expect and that is what we owe to our kids and grandkids.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Carleton for his motion. Unfortunately, this motion is another example of never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

After years of denying climate change, after years of being singled out for fossil fuel awards at international climate meetings, after years of feet-dragging, one would hope that perhaps, just perhaps, a light would shine through to inform motions like this.

Sadly, that appears not to be the case. Rather than embrace, as so much of the world has done, that climate change is real and that action is needed, this motion reflects the same old tune, the tune of denial, division, and opposing any action that would treat climate change as the challenge it is.

Actually, it is not so much about singing the same old tune as it is about whistling past the same old graveyard. It reflects the perspective that if we just whistle loudly enough and close our eyes tightly enough, climate change will simply go away and the world will revert back to the way things used to be before climate change became a scientifically established fact, before the world came together in Paris, and before the impacts of climate change became obvious to anyone with the wit and the will to see them.

That is what this motion represents, a long-past nostalgic time when sea levels were not rising, when more extreme weather was not happening, when greenhouse gas emissions were not a concern. It is a lovely place, but it is not planet Earth.

In reality, climate change is having profound effects on our world, and countries are alive to both the challenges and the opportunities it presents. This is perhaps where the motion most misses the point, in realizing that we are now in the clean growth century and that those nations that provide the innovation, ideas, and ingenuity to address climate change will be the ones that prosper.

The transition to clean energy is a perfect case in point. As the world embraces renewable energy and cleaner ways to extract traditional energy, Canada is ideally positioned to provide those answers.

Our clean technology sector ranks fourth in the world, and first in the G20. That is according to the 2017 Cleantech Innovation Index. Canada has now leapfrogged ahead of the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom. That is a jump from seventh in 2014. Canada also ranks third in the general drivers index, a set of indicators related to starting a business, clean tech or otherwise.

My friend will also be proud that the authors of the 2017 Cleantech Innovation Index praise Canada for its “leadership in national regulatory quality and government effectiveness, signaling the ability of [its government] to formulate and implement policies that promote the development of the private sector.”

That is what happens when a government makes generational investments in clean technology and clean infrastructure. It is what happens when a government takes climate change seriously by signing the Paris accord; accelerating the phase-out of coal; creating a low-carbon fuel standard; regulating methane emissions; making unprecedented investments in foundational science; developing, together with our provincial and territorial colleagues, a national plan for combatting climate change; and, yes, putting a price on carbon, as 42 countries and 25 subnational jurisdictions have also done.

As is clear from this motion, the hon. member does not want Canada to be part of this global shift. He does not want to tax carbon, presumably because he does not believe that carbon is contributing to climate change. This is simply a false premise on which to build an argument.

If we want to combat climate change, we need to reduce the amount of carbon and other polluting gases we are putting into the atmosphere, and the best way to do that is to make it more costly to pollute. That is what economists tell us. That is what corporations tell us. That is what indigenous groups tell us.

Making Canada a leader in clean tech and clean energy is what Canadians tell us they expect of their leaders and their county. That is the message that came through loud and clear in Generation Energy, the largest national conversation about energy in our country's history.

We invited Canadians to imagine their energy future. How do they expect the world to look when their kids and grandkids are grown? What should we be doing now to get there? Canadians responded in an unprecedented way, with numbers that are eye-opening. There were more than 380,000 participants, with 31,000 hits on social media, 63 engagement sessions in every part of the country, and more 650 people at the two-day Generation Energy Forum in Winnipeg last fall.

What emerged from Generation Energy was a remarkable, inspiring vision of how Canadians see their energy future. They told us that they want a thriving zero-carbon economy. They want us to be a leader in clean technology. They want an energy system that provides equal opportunities to Canadians without harming the environment. They want indigenous peoples to be part of the decision-making and to benefit from those opportunities.

Canadians are looking for smart cities with integrated energy systems, increased energy efficiency, and low-carbon transportation. They want rural and remote communities to have better options than diesel for generating electricity and heating their homes.

To keep the momentum, the Minister of Natural Resources has created a 14-member Generation Energy Council to provide recommendations on how best to move forward. That council is due to report this summer and will help define Canada's energy future, both here at home and through our international engagements, including at the G7, the G20, and the Clean Energy Ministerial.

This is the forward-looking clean energy future that Canadians seek, and they know that if we are serious about getting there, we need to begin today. Pricing carbon is an important part of that by sending the right signals, encouraging clean energy, discouraging pollution, spurring innovation, and creating new jobs.

The motion before us goes in the opposite direction. It looks to the past, not the future—to things as they were, not things as they are. It appeals to Canadians' worst fears, not their best hope. That is not the way forward for Canada. It is not the way to create the future. It is not the path our government will take.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we really wanted to protect the environment, we should have started a long time ago. Canada is missing the boat.

I am quite happy that we are putting a price on carbon, but why are we not trying to take a much more responsible approach to reducing greenhouse gases?

The current Liberal government kept the same targets as the previous Conservative government, and that is not nearly enough. Why then does the government not do more than just introduce a carbon tax? Why does it not impose targets that would really help keep our planet healthy for our children and grandchildren?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that we should have started a long time ago, but we did not. We were not in government a long time ago. In 10 years of government, the former government chose not to do anything about not just pricing carbon but about our commitments to climate change.

The member asked what other things we can do or are doing. One is the elimination of coal. As we know, it is one of the elements of our energy system that produces significant emissions and one of the things that we have committed as a government to phase out. It is part of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change and is a significant way to address our clean energy.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member said that for a long time no one has done anything. I would like to remind her that under the Chrétien government, the Liberals made the promise of reducing greenhouse gases. In fact, GHG emissions went up 25%. Our government formed, and those 10 years were the only time that greenhouse gas emissions dropped and the economy went up without a carbon tax. We gave incentives to businesses that did not penalize them but gave them opportunities.

I am wondering if the member would tell us what the cost of a carbon tax is going to be to Canadians. She has the report and she blacked it out so that Canadians cannot see it. Would the member finally tell us what the cost to Canadians will be?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member brought up what happened a few years ago when emissions went down. It amazes me that the member opposite and his party are trying to take credit for something that happened in Ontario with the phase-out of coal-fired plants. Nuclear power represents over 60% of the electricity generation in Ontario.

The elimination of the coal-fired plants has seen a reduction of visits of children with asthma at Ontario hospitals. It has seen respiratory problems go down. There are a number of benefits to the path that we are on and none to the path that the member opposite is suggesting.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government member about the challenge of applying a carbon price in Canada while no such price on emissions exists in many other countries. A concern is that this discrepancy could prompt carbon-intensive industries to simply relocate to jurisdictions with weaker environmental standards. That would eliminate Canadian jobs without doing anything to reduce global emissions. On the contrary, about five times as much carbon is emitted to produce a tonne of steel in China and ship it here than is emitted to produce it at the EVRAZ plant in Regina. The federal government could level this playing field by extending the carbon price to imports and rebating it on Canadian-made exports.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, competitiveness is one of the issues that our price on carbon would address. As I mentioned in my remarks, there are over 46 countries and over 26 subnational governments that have put a price on carbon pollution. As Canada, we are seen as the leader, and we want to be the leader. We certainly do not want to be the laggard.

I would also remind the member opposite that the revenue that comes from the price on carbon goes back to the provinces and territories, where they can choose to do what they wish with it, whether it is lowering taxes for citizens, giving companies additional money to help innovate and reduce taxes, or building hospitals and schools. Provinces do different things with the money as they see fit, but all of those revenues are going back to the provinces and territories.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and join the debate today. I will be sharing my time with the excellent member of Parliament for Red Deer—Lacombe. I look forward to his speech greatly.

I am from British Columbia, where we have had Canada's first true carbon tax in use for a decade. At the time, the B.C. carbon tax was proposed to be revenue neutral. Taxes raised from the carbon tax would be used to lower other taxes, such as B.C.'s personal, small business, and corporate tax rates. Indeed, for much of the last decade, B.C. has, as a result, had some of the lowest personal income tax rates in most income brackets in Canada. However, that was then and this is now, because now there is a B.C. NDP government, and it has changed the rules, so to speak, so that the revenue-neutral carbon tax has instead become an NDP tax grab.

More importantly, we are now seeing the obvious. Let me quote a headline from The Vancouver Sun from earlier this year: “Latest figures show B.C.'s carbon emissions continue to increase”. The article goes on to point out that the latest data shows B.C.'s carbon emissions at 63.3 million tonnes of carbon equivalent, an increase of 1.6% over the previous year. To be clear, that is an increase, not a decrease.

That is not the only place where the carbon tax is not working. Right next door is Washington State. As we all know, the United States had no national carbon tax. In 2016, Washington State looked at a carbon tax, but it was voted down.

What happens when one of your largest trading partners, who is also one of your biggest competitors, or where most of your biggest competitors are located, does not have a carbon tax? Let us look at the example of the British Columbia cement industry as an example. In 2008, at the time the B.C. carbon tax was introduced, basically 100% of all cement used in British Columbia was manufactured in British Columbia, and why not? Concrete is not exactly a lightweight, inexpensive product to import and then transport from other jurisdictions.

. What happened when B.C.-produced concrete started to become subject to a carbon tax in 2008? That is a great question. It became more expensive. By 2014, B.C.-produced concrete only accounted for roughly 65% of all concrete used in B.C., because cheaper concrete was being imported from jurisdictions with no carbon tax. That is a 35% loss of market share within its own market.

As result, the B.C. government is now providing financial subsidies to the B.C. concrete industry. They actually have a term for this now, and it is called “carbon leakage”.

Here is how “carbon leakage" is defined in the B.C. NDP's 2018 budget document: “Industries that compete with industry in countries that may have low or no carbon price: If Industry loses market share to more polluting competitors, known as carbon leakage, it affects our economy and does not reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.”

This is a flat out admission that a carbon tax is not all that it is made out to be, because it creates carbon leakage. I say that carbon leakage is found in this budget document, because subsidies and exemptions cost everyday taxpayers money. For the average hard-working Canadian family, there is no carbon tax exemption or relief for them. Costs for everyday items will skyrocket, taxes will rise, and life will simply become unaffordable for everyday Canadians. Instead, when the Prime Minister is confronted with the fact that carbon taxes have helped to create some of the highest gasoline and diesel prices in North America, he said that this is “exactly what we want.”

Is it really? I can tell my colleagues that is not what my constituents are saying back in Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola when they fuel up at local gas stations. In fact, they are saying quite the opposite.

I have places in my riding that are not accessible by public transport. Even private transport providers like Greyhound are abandoning some rural communities. Many of these same communities do not have access to renewable energy or even cleaner-burning non-renewables like liquefied natural gas. These people get hit the hardest by a carbon tax.

One gentleman actually showed me his natural gas bill from last month. If my colleagues can believe it, with the latest carbon tax increase, he actually paid more in carbon taxes than he did for the natural gas he used last month.

Let us think about that, paying more in a tax on a commodity than what the commodity actually costs. The current Prime Minister has said that is exactly what he wants.

What is more insulting is that the Liberal government has an environment minister who likes to say “pollution isn't free”. On this side of the House, we say, “Ok, tell us what it will cost Canadians.” The transparent Liberal government refuses to say. The information is redacted. It is being hidden from Canadians who deserve to know.

Basically the Liberal government demands that they pay this Liberal carbon tax but refuses to tell them how much they will have to pay. I am hopeful that the Office of the Information Commissioner, which has now launched an investigation to determine why the data about financial costs of a carbon tax per household is not being released to Canadians, will find out the reason why.

Last week, I asked my constituents why they thought the Liberal government was refusing to release this carbon tax information. The reason they shared with me does not inspire confidence in the Liberal government.

We have a carbon tax that after 10 years in B.C. has still failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have a carbon tax that has helped create the most expensive gasoline prices in North America, and living costs continue to rise. We have two problems here.

First, the carbon tax has proven that many industries cannot compete with countries that do not have a carbon tax. Despite the Prime Minister's insistence on his “progressive trade” agenda, it has been a total failure.

How often do we hear about carbon leakage? We do not, because those who promote carbon taxes refuse to talk about carbon leakage. It is an acknowledgement that carbon taxes can harm our economy without reducing pollution. There is no mystery why investment in Canada has declined every year since the Liberal government was elected. Each year it has been in power, it has enacted policies that have increased costs and have made us less competitive as a country. Irresponsible governments sitting on massive amounts of carbon tax revenue love to throw that money around, picking winners and losers.

I should add that the B.C. greenhouse growers have also secured B.C. carbon tax exemptions, not unlike some of Ontario's worst industrial polluters that have also received extensions and exclusions from the Ontario cap-and-trade way of taxing carbon. We all know the more carbon tax increases, the list of greenhouse gas emitters getting carbon leakage subsidies and relief will also continue to rise.

That leads to my second point. We will have a carbon tax that penalizes hard-working Canadian families because they never get exemptions from paying the carbon tax. We all know who pays for those subsidies and handouts. It is those hard-working families that are increasingly struggling to get by because the Liberal government keeps downloading costs onto them.

Environment Canada expects the carbon tax to go even higher. The Liberals are refusing to tell Canadians what it will cost. However, they are completely hiding that they will not stop there. They will continue to increase carbon taxes on Canadians. When either the Prime Minister or the environment minister are asked how much greenhouse gas emissions would be taken out of the environment by a Liberal carbon tax, we all know they will not answer. We should remember that in B.C., after a decade of a carbon tax, greenhouse gas emissions went up and not down.

The price of gasoline, the price to heat our homes, the price to buy groceries and provide food for our families, and the price of everyday goods that Canadians rely on will all go up under this Liberal carbon tax. We must stop increasing costs on Canadians with a failed carbon tax that we have already established is not working. That is why I will be voting in favour of the motion. We need to start addressing the cost of living for Canadians, not making the country unaffordable for them to live here.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, come from British Columbia, and I have a bit of a different story. When the carbon tax was introduced in B.C., I altered my travel patterns. I use transit a lot more in metro Vancouver, which we could do. I ended up ahead of the game.

When the Conservatives ask what it will cost the average Canadian, and I may not be average, I have ended up with more money in my pocket because I have taken advantage of the regime. Acknowledging that this may have changed, it is still an issue that the money is there for purposes of British Columbia. The agriculture sector was exempted in B.C. because it did not drive up the price of food.

The member quoted a figure that the emissions had gone up by one point something percent over the 10 years the carbon tax was in place. How can the member explain that next to the fact that the B.C. economy, just in the last five years, has gone up 3.3%, 3.7%, 2.7%, and 2.5%?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to simply share with my fellow British Columbian that what I had said about the 1.6% increase in emissions was year over year from 2014. Again, that information is publicly available.

The member highlights his personal example. Again, we live in different parts of the province. Many of the people who live in Cawston, in Olalla, and in Hedley are seniors. They moved there specifically to keep their bills down. I get phone calls from those people, asking questions about how they will be able to keep up with the costs that continue to rise or how they will get to the Penticton Regional Hospital for the services they need when it has become more and more expensive to either pay their bill or to pay for the carbon tax.

That man may know his own story, but he should really try to relate to the stories of thousands of people in my riding who have a much different experience with the carbon tax.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify something that has been bandied around in the House quite a bit lately, and that is about the high price of gasoline in Vancouver. This has no relation whatsoever to either pipeline accessibility or to carbon taxes. The only refinery in the Lower Mainland used to be owned by Chevron and was recently purchased by Parkland. For the first quarter of this year, and I am sure the member is aware of this, it was doing massive upgrades and renovations, so there was less locally refined gas available and more was purchased from the U.S. That is the only reason Vancouver now has such high gas prices. It is not related to the B.C. carbon tax.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's views regarding her constituents. I know she does a lot of town halls, as I do.

However, let us get serious. On April 1, we saw gas prices go up in B.C. specifically because the B.C. NDP raised the carbon tax from $30 a tonne of greenhouse gas emissions to $35 a tonne. Under the Liberal-imposed regime, it will go up to $50 a tonne by 2022.

Gas prices went up in April. It was specifically because of this. In fact, the premier tried to ask the federal government for some tax relief for gasoline in British Columbia. What hypocrisy. Both of these governments have agreed to a schedule that will cost the people in British Columbia more and more.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Multiculturalism)]

Mr. Speaker, we know that according to the World Bank, 67 jurisdictions and counting around the planet now have a price on carbon.

Why are the Conservatives so keen to miss out on where the global economy is headed with respect to clean growth? Are they out of touch or will they simply get on the right side of history in about a decade, the same way it took them about a decade after the Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage to change their official definition of marriage at a party convention?

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

Mr. Speaker, so much is going on in that question that it makes it laughable. It is not laughable to people in British Columbia who are facing higher costs of living.

We are part of an integrated economy. The member knows that NAFTA is up right now for renegotiation. We are integrated with the Americans. The Americans do not have a price on carbon. Again, as I said, even the B.C. NDP government has said that carbon leakage is a growing concern. Why? Paper and pulp mills will become less competitive at $50 a tonne, and the NDP is starting to set the stage for increased subsidies.

Jean Tirole, a Nobel Prize economist, has said that carbon leakage exists and it can have the worst of both worlds, where we have high carbon tax in one jurisdiction that forces a lower price of gas that gets consumed in the other.

That is a real possibility for North America, and that member is out of touch if he thinks this will not be a part of it.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a privilege for me to stand in the House and represent the fine folks in the constituency of Red Deer—Lacombe, some of the hardest working people we will ever find, many of them out of work or underemployed now as a direct result of policies, both provincially and federally, when it comes to the energy sector. People only need to take a drive through my constituency past the pipeline companies and the Edgar Industrial Park in Red Deer. If there is not a for sale or for lease sign on some of these buildings, they will see that all the iron is either still parked in the yard or gone. Where has it gone? It has gone to the United States. We are selling rigs at the pace of one a week out of Canada and into the United States.

This is all about the carbon tax cover-up. The Liberal government will not reveal the documents that finance officials and others have, underlining the cost to Canadians. This is because bad news is not good news for the government, so it will not release that information. It knows it will be a damning set of information that will likely haunt it into the next election.

However, we will not let up on this side of the House. We appreciate clean air, water, and land, and we will make the responsible choices that allow us to get there.

Notwithstanding all the graphics certain organizations and interests like to produce and show around the world, Alberta is one of the most clean place we will ever find. There are beautiful mountains and crystal clear blue rivers flowing out of our Rockies, pristine wilderness in our national and provincial parks, as well as in our forested areas all over northern and central Alberta. It is one of the most beautiful places on the planet. Anybody who says otherwise obviously has not been there.

The Liberals will not say how much the cost of this carbon tax is. In fact, when we ask for the documents, we are given these massive documents and every page is virtually blacked out, otherwise known as “redacted”, which means the information in there is too sensitive for the government to give us. It leads us to having an opposition day where we have to ask the government to reveal this information, which is known as the carbon tax cover-up.

If we are not going to know what the cost of the actual carbon tax is going to be, then we should know what the cost is to Canadians. I will talk about the boots on the ground.

As I alluded to earlier, over 100,000 jobs in the energy sector alone, many of jobs in my constituency of Red Deer—Lacombe, are not entry level salary jobs. These are some of the best paying jobs we will find in Alberta. In fact, these jobs are so desirable and so high paying that the taxes that have come from Alberta over the last series of decades have left Alberta in a situation where it contributes approximately $20 billion more a year to the coffers and revenues of the Government of Canada than the province of Alberta gets back in transfer payments for health, education, and so on. This means it is a $20-billion a year sector. This is just for the people who live and work in Alberta. It does not even include the thousands of people across the country who used to travel all the time to Alberta.

I mentioned this in a speech last week. I have been a member of Parliament here for 12 years. I get on a flight Thursdays to go back to Alberta, which is the best part of my job. These flights would originate out of either Montreal or Halifax. When I would get on that airplane in Ottawa, it would be filled with oil sands workers coming from either Atlantic Canada, the Maritimes, or Quebec. These folks were all wearing their Firebag and Kearl project jackets, they had their workboots on, and they were ready to go all the way to Alberta. These jobs were so well-paying it was cost-effective enough for them to book a flight, go work in the oil sands for several weeks at a time, and then go back to their families. That paycheque would improve the quality of life of these Canadians. People from all over the world would come to Alberta.

Over 4,000 businesses in Canada alone have a direct line to the oil sands because they provide goods, services, or products to the oil sands development. These are millions and millions of dollars of revenue.

The cost is 100,000 pairs of boots on the ground that are no longer working in some of the highest-paying jobs, and paying the highest tax rate, by the way, providing government coffers with more wealth than virtually any other sector of the economy.

What has this cost been to families? When someone does not have a job it causes stress. It causes strife. It causes suicides. These are things that do not get talked about a lot, but as the member of Parliament for Red Deer—Lacombe, I can say this is one of the most egregious factors undermining the ability of those in an otherwise well-paid portion of our economy who have lost their jobs to be able to provide for their families. What I mean by that is places where houses are relatively expensive and the cost of living is fairly high because the amount of wealth that is generated there is generally fairly high. This creates all kinds of problems for the constituents in my riding.

These costs are very high. There is a cost for mothers wanting to take their kids to baseball or to hockey. When one lives in Rimbey—

Mr. Speaker, I see you want me to stop here. I will pause and resume where I left off with the fine folks in Rimbey.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Indeed, the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe will have four minutes remaining for his remarks when the House returns to the question that is before it, as well as the usual five minutes for questions and comments.

Trans Mountain Pipeline

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the government has approved the Trans Mountain pipeline, but we find ourselves in a difficult situation. In an era of economic uncertainty, the pipeline represents both job creation and crucial trade opportunities for Canada. It is expected not only to inject billions of dollars into Canada's economy through project spending and exports but also to generate thousands of jobs. Yes, the pipeline brings concerns of environmental damage, but the merits of this project are clear: the pipeline is the safest, most cost-effective way of transporting oil.

My constituents have expressed concerns over the ongoing delays in building the pipeline. Many of them rely on the jobs that it will create in the province of Alberta. It is clear there are many passionate people on both sides of this issue. The Trans Mountain pipeline is greater than one or two individuals; it is about Canada's domestic and international growth. Instead of bickering, fighting, and placing blame, we should be truly listening to each other and communicate a strategy that finds us on common ground.

Let us be Canadians first and let cooler heads prevail.

Recognition of Lifetime of Service

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour and congratulate Chesley W. Patten, who was born and raised in Grand Bank in my riding. He enlisted in the Royal Canadian Air Force during the Second World War and served as a flight sergeant navigator flying coastal patrol on the east coast of Canada for the duration of the war.

After the war, he enrolled as a student at Dalhousie University and graduated as a chartered accountant. He was hired by Ontario Hydro, where he worked his entire working life. In 1943, while on leave from the military, he joined the Masonic lodge. Today, Chesley is celebrating 75 years as a Mason. At 97 years old, he is currently the last chaplain at the Joseph Hearn Lodge in Mississauga.

On behalf of all of the residents of Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, I would like to thank Chesley Patten for his lifetime of service to our country and his community.

Maple Syrup Technology

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, who would have ever thought that we could get syrup from a maple tree? From the first settlers, who learned to boil sap from indigenous populations, to modern facilities using state-of-the-art technology, there have been a number of innovations over the course of many sugaring seasons. Réjean Bilodeau, a maple enthusiast from Bellechasse, tells this fascinating story in his beautiful 776-page book.

With pioneers like François Goulet, Clément Métivier, and Jean-Marie Chabot, he explains that countless innovations in maple syrup technology were in fact developed in Bellechasse, including the renowned vacuum system in 1973.

In March 2016, Mr. Bilodeau was diagnosed with bone marrow cancer, but this has not slowed him down in the least, for this Saturday he will be launching his second book on this captivating topic. That is why, thanks to his determination and tenacity, I am proud to stand in the House and join our municipality in declaring Bellechasse the birthplace of maple syrup technology.

Speech and Hearing Month

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, May is Speech and Hearing Month. As the father of a future speech therapist, I am proud to acknowledge the exceptional work of speech therapists and audiologists.

Throughout the month of May, Speech-Language & Audiology Canada's more than 6,400 members will be highlighting the importance of early detection and intervention of speech, language, swallowing, hearing, and balance disorders.

From birth, newborns begin communicating and building their future. This is vital for the social and professional development of any individual.

Many Canadians suffer from hearing and speech disorders. People should visit their local Canadian Hearing Society.

I ask all members to join me in recognizing Speech and Hearing Month in Canada and to stand in support of the work of speech pathologists and audiologists across the country.

Meegwetch.

Recreational Activities for Hochelaga's Seniors

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Hochelaga and elsewhere, our seniors are at greater risk of being poor and isolated. Our inadequate public pensions and the government's failure to provide automatic enrolment in the guaranteed income supplement have done nothing to help lift seniors out of poverty. The growing tendency to provide our public services only online really complicates their lives.

Fortunately, several groups in my riding are stepping up to the plate and helping to break the isolation of seniors. Carrefour Montrose and Loisirs Notre-Dame des Victoires are two organizations that provide seniors with recreational activities to keep them from becoming isolated and to help them stay active. Remarkably, Carrefour has been doing this for 30 years and Loisirs for 65 years.

I invite all my colleagues to join me in thanking these two groups and wishing them an excellent anniversary.

Olympic Gold Medallist

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, White Rock citizen Christine Girard is the first Canadian woman ever to win an Olympic medal in weightlifting. In London, in 2012, she initially won the bronze medal and has recently been awarded the gold medal as the two athletes who finished before her were disqualified for doping.

Christine is a proud mother of three children, and she is married to her coach, Walter Bailey. She is a wonderful role model who has supported young athletes through her coaching and her support of KidSport. She has chronicled her experiences in a recent book entitled “From Defeat to Victory”.

She is a humble, proud Canadian, and she has described her gold medal as a victory for her sport and for our country, believing that it reflects the Canadian values of fair play and competitiveness.

On behalf of all Canadians, we thank Christine for her inspiration both as an athlete and as a citizen.

Asian Heritage Month

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize the month of May as Asian Heritage Month. It is a time to celebrate and reflect on the contributions that Canadians of Asian heritage have made to Canada.

I proudly represent the riding of Markham—Unionville, which is home to a large and thriving Asian community. Canadians of Asian heritage in Markham and across Canada are active members of our communities and contribute to our national life.

Canadians from all backgrounds stand together to honour the legacy of Canadians of Asian heritage who, throughout our history, have played a major role in moulding Canada into the culturally diverse, energetic, and prosperous nation we know today.