Debates of May 8th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Carbon Pricing

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I look at Bill C-74 and its implications for something like mining initiatives in Nunavut, the way they have calculated things, there will be an extraordinary impact. It is estimated that will be $20 million a year. There has been no accommodation for mining projects in the north. I think people in the north are very concerned about the Liberal government moving forward. Quite frankly, capital will simply flow as they cannot be competitive with that $20-million increase and will go where their money is welcome.

What does the member have to say to those people in Nunavut when an employer, who is employing probably half of that population's workforce, is very concerned, and the Liberal government has done nothing to even consider the unique circumstances of the north?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I will say is if I look back over the last week and at where A.T. Kearney ranked Canada for foreign direct investment, which is number two in the world, it is a very attractive place to invest. I know that in the north there have been many mining projects. Actually, a few of them have been recently approved. While on a flight, I remember having a discussion with one of the government relations folks from a large mine about a project that is going forward. We approved that and it is going forward, which is great.

Last year, I was able to visit Yellowknife with the finance committee and talk about the unique circumstances that the north has. We are listening and we are ensuring that the north's competitive environment for attracting investments, whether it is Alberta's industrial heartland, which I visited in January, or whether it is in the interior of British Columbia, remains strong and robust. Those companies are investing funds in our country. It is paying off by the number of jobs that are being created from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the federal government is finally going to put a price on carbon and pollution. It was high time.

Two and a half years ago, the Liberals promised something else in their election platform, namely to cut subsidies. They said, and I quote: “[We will] phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry”. They made that promise two and a half years ago, but there is nothing but crumbs in the most recent budget.

When will they make good on that promise?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need to have balance between supporting the environment and doing the right thing for the environment by ensuring there is a pan-Canadian framework for the pricing of carbon, which we are doing.

We also need to grow the economy. We need to ensure that policies are in place where we can have robust capital investments, as my colleague from Kamloops alluded to. We have approved pipelines. We are supporting middle-class workers. Those middle-class workers may be construction workers in my riding or they could be oil rig workers in Alberta, British Columbia, or Saskatchewan.

We need to make sure we have balance. Our government is striking that balance. We are putting forward a pan-Canadian framework for the pricing of carbon. Eighty-five per cent of Canada is actually covered by a system for pricing carbon. For those areas that are not, we will put the back stop in and ensure at the same time that companies are able to invest, grow, and prosper in this great country we live in.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge was a banker by profession prior to politics, so I am going to put to him two economic statistics. According to the World Bank, 67 jurisdictions representing about half of the global economy and more than a quarter of global GHG emissions are putting a price on carbon, and the four provinces that have a price on carbon, B.C., Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec, had the highest GDP growth and created the most jobs in Canada in 2017.

In the opinion of the member, why does that make this an appealing case for why a price on pollution should be put in place nationally?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we should look at British Columbia. I grew up on the northwest coast. B.C. has had a price on carbon for over a decade. The economy has done phenomenally well. We use the expression “broken the back”, but we have broken the curve on emissions in B.C. and people have prospered. There is a robust farming community in the interior, in Abbotsford, Chilliwack, and so forth. They are doing well. There is a robust real estate industry. It is attracting investment. It is a great environment for people to live in and raise their families.

If members just look at the the province of British Columbia, it is also, in my view, very important that it has a revenue neutral carbon tax. When it was brought in by then premier Gordon Campbell, I fully supported a carbon price where funds that are collected are given back in personal and corporate tax reductions.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

It has been suggested that an effective response to climate change needs to be scientifically sound, environmentally sustainable, financially realistic, as well as global, comprehensive, and holistic. That may be a little optimistic in that we would not get all of the components in a planned approach in response to climate change, but I would suggest that the Liberals are failing on probably each and every one of these measures as they approach their climate change plan. They are really failing to meet most of these criteria.

As people in the House are aware, the government has introduced Bill C-74, which includes the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act, and talks about it being designed to impact behavioural change. My remarks are going to focus not only on how the specific issues I mentioned earlier would be ineffective but also how many people with the least options are going to be unduly penalized.

First, all Canadians should be very concerned and offended by the lack of transparency on this particular initiative. The Conservative shadow minister for finance has regularly pointed out the carbon tax cover-up. The finance department knows the numbers. The finance department has calculated the numbers in terms of the cost for individuals and families. When it was asked for that information, the government released it, but blacked out all of the information. It really is quite offensive that a government would impose a tax on Canadians and not be transparent about what that tax will actually cost.

I harken back to the election commitments the Liberals made, saying they would be a transparent government by default. On this and many other issues, whether it be the deficit or democratic reform, they are absolutely failing to live up to the commitments they made to Canadians in 2015. I suggest that for any credibility, they should be releasing those numbers and not waiting until months down the road, after they have imposed the tax. This, quite frankly, is wrong.

At the start of my speech, I talked about something that was scientifically sound. What have the Liberals done? They have set a pricing level that would start at $30 and move its way up to $50. The minimum calculation that any scientist makes in terms of being effective is $100, and I have seen some that go as high as $300, as what needs to be the price on carbon to create the behavioural changes the Liberals want to create. They are creating a cost for consumers, but it is not going to have the impact this tax needs to have.

It is important to note that it is being done in isolation from our continental partners. If we recall, China, India, and the U.S. are the major emitters and Canada is less than 2%. We need to be global in our approach. That is in the definition, “global approach”. Here we are, going down a path in which, quite frankly, the Liberals are pricing in a way that would hurt Canadians and not create the desired effect, and they are essentially doing it in isolation from the global major emitters.

The government and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change love to talk about British Columbia, so I will as well. That is the province I am from. They hold it up as a really great model. They have consistently said that. It was introduced in 2008 as a revenue neutral carbon tax, but let me explain what has been happening over the years. In actual fact, I was not upset or concerned when the British Columbia government introduced this revenue neutral carbon tax. It explained it appropriately. I was fortunate that it was not going to create a huge affordability issue for me and my family. The B.C. government was trying its best to offset impacts on those who could not afford it.

The Liberals hold it up as great example because, they say, it brought emissions down. Well, emissions went down across the world in 2008. They went down because we had a global recession. The analysis was that the carbon tax brought emissions down and then the economy recovered, absolutely. If we take a baseline from before, when the economy was ticking along quite nicely in 2007 and 2008, and then we had a global recession, we would have a significant drop in emissions. Ultimately Canada had a good recovery.

The Liberals also like to say that emissions dropped and the GDP did well. They love to compare it to Ontario, but Ontario was suffering the highest electricity prices and manufacturing was fleeing. They never actually compare it to provinces that had a similar type of economy, such as Saskatchewan and Alberta, and if we look at the economic growth in those two provinces, it was significantly more than British Columbia's economic growth. We cannot take gross measures and hope to be precise in what the impact of the actual carbon tax was, because there were so many things that were happening throughout that time period.

What was a revenue-neutral carbon tax started to drift. There was a solid commitment to the citizens of British Columbia that every penny the government took in carbon taxes would be returned to them. What happened in 2013-14 was that the Auditor General started to review and saw that what was initially revenue neutral was turning into other things. The B.C. government started to include many things that really were inappropriately included to suggest it was revenue neutral, but in actual fact it was drifting quite significantly from revenue neutrality.

I have to talk about the NDP in British Columbia, because it campaigned on “axe the tax”. It said it would axe the tax, that it would be gone. The NDP finally became government in 2017, and the first thing it did was to take away the revenue neutrality from the carbon tax. It actually legislated away revenue neutrality and then increased the tax. What was a well-designed, reasonable approach quickly became a cash grab under the control of the NDP government. It was general revenue for the government to use for whatever it wanted.

As a result, members will forgive me for being a little cynical about anyone who lauds the British Columbia tax as a great revenue-neutral model. I know the same thing could happen across the country in all the other provinces as they implement this imposed federal tax. It demonstrates how a commitment to revenue neutrality can quickly be reneged on, and there is nothing that will stop the federal government from doing the same thing.

The north is going to be the area most impacted by these changes. It has very limited density. In many cases, people rely on diesel fuel, and the north has extra costs associated with its mining. It is going to be significantly impacted.

The northern premiers signed on in good faith, with the understanding that the government would look at their particular and unique circumstances. What has happened? What does the bill the government has introduced do for the north? It has done nothing. The Liberals looked at a baseline for mining emissions and actually based it on a southern model, so what is going to happen is that mines in the north will be more significantly impacted than any others.

What we see here is that the government has introduced a measure that is going to be ineffective in meeting its goal. It has provided no accommodation for people who live in the north and in rural communities. It is really important that the Liberal government gets into its own areas of jurisdiction. It has policy levers it can use to meet reduction targets and meet its Paris targets. However, quite simply, what the government is doing is going to be a failure on way too many measures.

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's comments. In particular, she stated in her speech that when the Conservatives were in power, they were worried about high competitiveness continent-wide and wanted to match up a carbon pricing scheme with the Americans, yet I note that over 67 jurisdictions around the world are now implementing carbon pricing, not even including China. Noting that the world is heading to this place, is it not imperative that we get ahead of the curve, match our economies, and that this will provide some efficiencies and some effectiveness as well as get us on track to doing our part to reduce emissions?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have always found it very interesting that we talk about carbon emissions but we actually never talk about the whole carbon sink issue.

One of the things that Canada needs to look at and be very proud of is that some people calculate that we are actually a net carbon sink. As we look at how we are going to impact carbon across the world and we look at these highly populated, high-density countries that do not have any farmland and have minimal numbers of trees, we need to also say that by having a northern type community we have a carbon sink but we also have more challenges with our emissions per capita. We need to look at that big picture and not forget about the whole carbon sink side of the issue, where Canada certainly plays a very significant role.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind our hon. Conservative colleagues that the national round table on the environment and the economy, the only organization that brought the environment and the economy together to track progress, was axed in 2011 by the incoming majority Conservative government.

This organization demonstrated that the cost of inaction was much greater than the cost of action. If we put a price on carbon, there are some minor consequences, but they are much more positive than negative.

If we fail to take action on climate change, it is projected that the extreme weather caused by climate change will be costing the economy $21 billion to $43 billion a year by 2050.

What does my colleague have to say about that?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing we have to recognize is that what the government is doing will not create the change it wants to create. It has been estimated that it would have to move from $30 per tonne to anywhere from $100 to $300 per tonne. The impact on people in this country would be significant. The Liberals are not at an effective level, but to do it in isolation, without everyone taking part, does not make any sense. We would not create the outcome that we want to create, and we are certainly right now not pricing it in a way that would effect change.

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

Mr. Speaker, we understand that last week Environment and Climate Change Canada produced a report indicating that by pricing pollution we would reduce emissions by up to 90 million tonnes, a huge part of meeting our Paris commitments. In a puzzling interview last week, the Leader of the Opposition claimed he knows how to meet our Paris targets without putting a price on pollution and without putting forward anything resembling a plan to tackle climate change.

Which is it? Does the party of the member opposite not understand what real action on climate change looks like, or do the Conservatives just not care about climate action?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from what I gather, there are certainly a lot of very significant flaws in the report that was tabled, but we will be delightedly waiting for the campaign of 2019, when we are going to present a plan to Canadians that will do just what we have said it will do and present a good, positive alternative in how we will move forward on this important issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this opposition day to speak to a motion that makes a lot of sense.

The Liberals have lost control of the public debt, taxes, and now greenhouse gas emissions. What is their solution? A tax. This time, it is being called the carbon tax. It is a tax nonetheless, because a tax is a tax is a tax. This particular tax is costly and ineffective, as I will be demonstrating over the next few minutes. It will be very easy. This will be a snap for me.

As my colleague from British Columbia just said, that province's carbon tax is not working. Greenhouse gas emissions keep going up, and the whole business ended up being a cash grab against taxpayers.

This time, however, the Liberals found a way to exploit Canadians' desire to effectively combat climate change. When we ask the Liberals how much their tax will cost Canadian taxpayers, they respond that they do not know. When we ask them by how much their tax will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Liberals have nothing to say. No answer. We do not know how much the tax will cost, nor do we know how much greenhouse gases would be reduced. The Liberals are asking us for a blank check. This government has lost control.

The parliamentary budget officer said that the next two deficits would exceed estimates by $4 billion.

In the latest report entitled “Economic and Fiscal Outlook”, Jean-Denis Fréchette's team estimated that Ottawa would post a $22.1-billion deficit at the end of the current fiscal year, which is $4 billion more than what the government projected in its budget in February.

This is recent. We are talking about April 2018. Two months after revising their budget to reflect a $22.1-billion deficit, they have already gone over. The Liberals have overspent on their overspending, and they are in over their heads. This is quite surprising, considering that the Prime Minister said that this government would run “modest deficits”.

We now see that government spending is out of control. It might not be so bad if people could say that the government is going into debt but they are paying less in taxes, but I am sorry to say this afternoon that over 80% of middle-class families are paying more taxes. The Fraser Institute is an independent and non-partisan organization that studies public policies. It has said that, on average, middle-class families will have to pay $840 more in taxes. That article was published some time ago in September 2017. Unfortunately, families have to pay even more taxes, and it is only getting worse. Canada's debt is growing and people have to pay more taxes.

Another point that I would like to make is that Canada is failing to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. This government is really having a hard time governing. It is raising taxes, causing the deficit to skyrocket, and losing control of greenhouse gas emissions.

This same government just asked us for carte blanche today to impose even more taxes on taxpayers, without any idea of what the outcome will be. The fact that climate change exists is reason enough for the Liberals to tax Canadians without really knowing what the impact of that tax will be.

It will have an impact. The parliamentary budget officer published a new report showing that the carbon tax will reduce our GDP by $10 billion by 2022, possibly even $35 billion a year by some estimates. Who will pay for that? It is workers, families, and parents who drive their children to activities. Summer is coming, a time when, after work, people go home and have a quick supper and then drive their children to their activities, often soccer. They try to do that before it gets dark. The price of gas will continue to rise even though it is already heavily taxed.

We are already paying a significant tax on carbon, and now we will be paying even more, without knowing how this tax will affect the environment. However, we know that it will have an effect on the economy.

Yesterday, I was at a committee meeting where we were discussing how to help young Canadians, particularly indigenous youth, integrate into the job market. The committee heard from a representative from an organization representing agencies that help indigenous youth train for careers. We need welders, mechanics, and plumbers. These youth must leave the reserve and sometimes travel long distances to get to a training centre, and they pay a lot for gas. This indigenous representative said that this was another barrier preventing young Canadians from accessing the job market.

We would like to be able to say that things are going well with this government, but the truth is that things are not great. Debt is going up, along with taxes and greenhouse gas emissions. It is an interesting contrast, because we have an alternative to offer to those people who are tuning in, and we have been through it before. Sometimes, the solution is to look back. In a news release in February 2007, a certain organization welcomed an announcement made one morning in Sherbrooke by prime minister Stephen Harper and premier Jean Charest that the Quebec government would be getting $350 million from the federal government for its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That same organization was delighted that this $1.5-billion program applied to all the provinces. I was lucky enough to be part of that government, and the organization that was praising Stephen Harper's Conservative government was Greenpeace.

There are then two approaches. First, there is the approach of a government that cut taxes. Members will recall the GST being lowered from 7% to 5% and the general tax cuts for all Canadians. Such a thing had not been seen in decades, despite the economic crisis. When we handed the car keys to the government across the aisle, Canada had a balanced budget. We had also reduced Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 2.2%, increased our gross domestic product, grown the economy by more than 15%, and, of course, created hundreds of thousands of jobs, on the heels of a recession, no less.

Second, there is the approach of a government that says it is going to make us pay for a new tax, the carbon tax, and that we will have to pay more taxes and get deeper into debt. Of course, it cannot offer us any guaranteed results, because the commissioner of the environment, Julie Gelfand, says that if nothing is done about greenhouse gas emissions, the federal government will not meet the targets set by the previous Conservative government. Not only do the Liberals boast about being environmentalists, but they are copying our targets and cannot even meet them.

I see that my time is almost up, but that was the gist of my presentation. The saddest thing is that we are in a time of obfuscation and secrecy. The numbers are being kept from us. What impact will the carbon tax have on reducing greenhouse gas emissions? No answer. What impact will it have on Canadian families? We know from the parliamentary budget officer that it will cost at least $10 billion.

In closing, I would like to quote a Quebec business reporter who commented on the carbon tax saying that the government is abusing Canadians' generosity: “If you still have not realized that the government is quietly shoving a hidden tax down our throats, then I cannot help you”. He then added, “The average taxpayer is overtaxed and concerned about the environment.” Contrary to what the government across the way would have us believe, all Canadians, regardless of their political stripe, wants Canada to be a leader, but they also expect the country to balance the needs of the economy and of the environment. Finally, the quote ends with, “If we stopped taking taxpayers for fools, they would be more motivated to do their share”.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Leader of the Opposition said that he had a plan to address greenhouse gas emissions, but would not say what that plan was. We continue to hear that today from the opposition. Meanwhile, the opposition spent a decade failing to do anything.

The Conservatives try to take credit, as they have this morning, for a lot that was done by the provinces during that time, but why should we trust them now? They spent a decade doing nothing. The Leader of the Opposition says he has a plan but will not say what it is. Why should we suddenly decide they are right and we will take their word for it? Why should the Canadian public do that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. He asked why we would take the hon. member at his word and why we would trust him. I think that I clearly explained that we have no reason to trust the current government, which misled the public about the deficit, the out-of-control greenhouse gas emissions, and the taxes that rose along with the deficit.

The hon. member has an opportunity to answer the opposition's questions today. I am asking the hon. member, as well as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, what impact the carbon tax will have on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I always enjoy listening to him because he uses colourful expressions. At the beginning of his speech, he spoke about the Liberal government's out-of-control spending. We could probably talk about that for a long time. I rather agree with him, but that is not what we are debating today.

However, I beg to differ with him on the Liberal government's out-of-control greenhouse gas emissions. In my opinion, the Liberals never had greenhouse gas emissions under control. Unfortunately, I have to say that that is also true of the Conservatives. In his speech, the member clearly let it be known that he was taking credit for the success stories of provinces such as Quebec.

My question is very simple. Where is the Conservative greenhouse gas reduction plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NPD colleague for his question.

I recall that his former leader was the Quebec environment minister at the time and was arguing with the Liberals even then. It did not work. When we took office, we sat down with the provinces and we invested $1.5 billion in their green plans. That is why the previous Conservative government can take credit for the measures that were put in place by the provincial governments. That is what the previous Conservative government did, rather than arguing like the Liberals and the NDP. I would say to the hon. member that the important thing about any plan is that it contain effective measures. That is not what we have here today. We have a tax and we see the impact that it is having in other areas.

I agree with my colleague that the government members have no control over greenhouse gas emissions. They are trying to ease their consciences by taking money from taxpayers' pockets. That will not do anything to help the environment.

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out for the member that our party actually reduced taxes on nine million middle-class Canadians and raised taxes on the top 1%, which is his party rejected. He referenced a Fraser Institute study. That study did not reference our Canada child benefit, which benefits nine out of 10 families. It therefore is out of date.

The member states that the carbon tax is inefficient. The vast majority of economists, even Preston Manning himself, know that if we want to do something about climate change, the most efficient means is through a carbon price. Given this evidence, why does he not accept that this is the best way to deal with emissions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would like to correct him on something. When the Fraser Institute said that families are paying more taxes, it took into account the tax credit for families. This government gave with one hand and took away with the other. I am talking about the public transit tax credit, the fitness and arts tax credit, and income splitting.

What is worse, the wealthiest Canadians are paying less taxes than before. My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent clearly proved it by quoting a Department of Finance study showing that the rich are paying less taxes because they have managed to find tax loopholes. That means that the middle class is paying more taxes and the wealthy are paying less. That is the Liberal track record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to once again reaffirm our commitment to tackling climate change. I will be splitting my time with the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

Canadians understand climate change is real, and they know governments at home and around the world must urgently address this challenge. It is the right thing to do for our children and grandchildren.

As we speak here today, Canadians and people around the world are being impacted by climate change, from severe storms and droughts, to sea level rise, to devastating floods. Sadly, as climate change accelerates, these impacts will not only worsen, they will bring crushing costs.

From 1983 to 2004, insurance claims in Canada from severe weather events were almost $400 million a year. In the past decade, that amount tripled to $1.2 billion a year. By 2020, climate change is expected to cost Canada's economy $5 billion a year, and as much as $43 billion a year by 2050.

If we do not act now, we will pass these growing costs on to future generations. That is exactly what the previous government did. By setting emissions targets without having a concrete plan to meet them, it jeopardized both the environment and the economy. We must not make the same mistake.

By making smart, sensible, and practical changes, we will avert the dangers of climate change and grasp the enormous economic opportunities of taking action, opportunities worth trillions of dollars around the world and good jobs at home.

Unlike the opposition party that voted to support the Paris agreement, but again and again refuse to tell Canadians what its climate plan is, we have a practical, cost-effective plan that will reduce emissions, create good-paying, middle-class jobs, and spur our clean growth economy.

A major component of our made-in-Canada climate plan is reducing costs for homes and businesses through energy efficiency. Reducing energy and saving Canadians money is a win-win for our environment and our economy. We know that families that invest in energy efficiency can cut their home heating bills in half, and we know that energy efficient homes and buildings have higher resale values.

Of course, these changes need not be overly complicated. Small investments can yield huge results. For instance, by using a programmable thermostat, people can save up to $150 a year. By putting energy-efficient light bulbs in the five light fixtures they use most frequently, people can save more than $65 a year.

One company in Alberta, Landmark Homes, makes net zero homes through better insulation, heating, and lighting, and many produce more energy than they consume. Today, we see homes like this being built across the country. In Edmonton, where Landmark Homes is based, the city has the highest number of net zero homes in the country.

Now, for provinces that have signed onto our climate plan, we are making it easier for people to reduce their energy use and save money through our low-carbon economy leadership fund. A few weeks ago I announced our government was investing $100 million to help the people of Ontario make energy efficient retrofits to their businesses and homes, including apartments, townhouses, and low-income housing.

By teaming up with the provincial government, the GreenOn rebates will help property owners make energy efficient changes like installing better insulation, high-efficiency ventilation systems, and other devices to save energy and reduce costs. We are launching programs like this across the country.

Last year, through the green municipal fund, we also invested $72 million to support energy efficiency projects in 48 communities.

The municipality of Saint-Ubalde, in Quebec, received some of that funding to install a district heating system for several buildings. The project, which creates energy by transforming residual forest biomass, will help the municipality cut its emissions by 218 tonnes and reduce long-term heating costs by 40% in the buildings using that system.

Investing in energy efficiency also creates good-paying middle-class jobs: jobs in construction, services, research, and manufacturing. That is why we are investing $21.9 billion in green infrastructure to build energy-efficient homes and offices, helping families save money on their energy bills and creating new jobs for Canadians.

In fact, over 100,000 Canadians were employed in energy efficiency jobs in 2013. A report just last year found that shifting to net zero emissions buildings could create just short of two million jobs over 33 years through construction from retrofitting and building new, green buildings.

We know that every dollar spent on energy efficiency programs generates between $4 and $8 of GDP. In other words, this is about reducing energy and saving money. It is equally about creating good jobs for Canadians across the country.

The opposition party wants Canadians to think that tackling climate change is a cost, but by failing to take action we see huge economic costs, and Canadians miss out on good jobs and major economic opportunities.

According to the World Bank, the Paris Agreement will help open up nearly $23 trillion in new opportunities for climate-smart investments in emerging markets around the world between now and 2030. Combined, this will spark incredible job creation, and that is why Canada is leading to take advantage of the opportunities.

We are investing $20.1 billion to support urban public transit to help reduce commute times in our cities, increase the use of clean transportation, and allow people to spend more time with their families and less time in traffic.

With a $2.2-billion investment, we are fostering clean tech research and development, production, and export. We are accelerating the growth of this industry to capture an increasing share of the global market.

Last year, I was in China on a trade mission and saw the rapid shift toward clean energy that country is making. As the world's largest producer of wind and solar electricity, China is expected to increase its power storage capacity tenfold by 2020. China now has the largest number of electric vehicles on the road, overtaking, for the first time, the number of electric vehicles in the United States.

While visiting the country, I met with representatives from Ballard Power Systems, a Canadian company from Burnaby, B.C. that makes fuel cells used in zero-emission vehicles. There, in Shanghai, I saw electric city buses using Ballard's technology. Ballard is commercializing and exporting clean energy solutions that are in demand in China and around the globe, and this is just one example of a Canadian company that is innovating, creating jobs, and selling its clean technologies.

To spur the kind of innovation and job creation I described, we also need to put a price on carbon pollution. Canadians know that polluting is not free. It has real costs. In fact, it is essentially a tax that we are passing on to the next generations.

Our climate plan includes a price on pollution, because it works. It is one of the lowest-cost tools to fight climate change and drive clean innovation. Just last week, we published a study that found that, by 2022, a nationwide price on carbon pollution that meets the federal standard would eliminate the emissions equivalent of taking between 23 million and 26 million cars off the road for a year, or closing 20 coal-fired plants. Already, over 80% of Canadians live in a province that has a price on carbon pollution: Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. Last year, these provinces led the country in economic growth.

The time for politics is over. Taking action on climate change should not be a partisan issue, but, sadly, that is what the Conservatives are making it. Through our made-in-Canada climate plan, we are pricing carbon pollution, phasing out coal-fired electricity, and investing in public transit, green infrastructure, and clean technologies. In doing so, we are sending a strong signal to investors and to the world. Canada will create good-paying middle-class jobs, drive clean innovation, and be a leader in the clean growth century. That is what Canadians expect us to do, and that is what we are doing.

Our government will continue acting in the interest of our environment and our economy, because we owe it to our kids and our grandkids.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we have often asked how much a carbon tax would cost Canadians in terms of the impact of the reduction of emissions on their families. However, we continue to get no answers.

One of the lunacies of the argument that the Minister of Environment makes, and she made it last week in the House during question period, is that somehow a carbon tax, people paying a tax on carbon, is going to avoid natural disasters. However, as we saw last year, for example, B.C. had raging wildfires, despite the fact that the British Columbia government has had a carbon tax for almost 10 years.

I want to know how the minister can come up with the conclusion that natural disasters will be avoided by imposing a carbon tax on Canadians, when the examples are clear in B.C.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to start to answer this question. We are seeing the real impacts of climate change. It is true. We need to see real action. That is why we are taking action, such as putting a price on pollution, making investments in clean innovation, and making investments in companies that are going to export the solutions that the world greatly needs.

We need to take action on climate change, but the problem is that the party opposite does not understand it. Climate change is real. It has real impacts. It has real costs, and we have a plan to tackle it. I really wish the other party would show us their plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech.

I just cannot get over the fact that the Liberals criticized the Conservatives for not doing enough, but once they were in power, they just copied the Conservatives' plan and their targets. Now it is the Liberal government's plan.

That is not even the worst of it. We are concerned because it looks like even those pathetic targets will not be met. That is not coming from me. It is coming from the OECD, the United Nations, and the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.

How can the Minister of Environment and Climate Change say she wants to tackle climate change when the targets will not be met and her government is subsidizing oil and gas companies to the tune of $1 billion per year?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We certainly do have a plan to tackle climate change. We said that we must do our part and that we must have a plan to meet our targets, and that is exactly what we have. We said that there would be a price on pollution across the country. We are making unprecedented investments in public transit and green infrastructure, and we are helping companies with clean solutions that eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. We will keep doing what we are doing.

On one side, we have a party that does not realize we must take action on the environment, and on the other, we have a party that does not understand we need to pay attention to the economy. We know that we can do both at the same time, and that is what we are doing.