Debates of May 8th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Production of Documents on Carbon Pricing

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government takes the difficulties caused by climate change and the opportunities for clean growth very seriously. We have already announced unprecedented investments in public transit, green infrastructure, and clean innovation, as well as our plan to price carbon pollution across the country.

Canadians know that pollution is not free. In recent years, Canadians have encountered more frequent and extreme weather events, such as forest fires and floods. Disasters have caused billions of dollars in damages for taxpayers. As the climate changes, this will only get worse. Many people have lost homes and businesses.

For the last decade, the party opposite refused to act on climate change, and some outright denied it is even real. In failing to implement a credible plan, the Conservatives have put our environment and our economy in jeopardy. Today, we can no longer drag our feet. We need to act. That is exactly what we are doing.

The cornerstone of our plan is pricing pollution, which is largely recognized as one of the most effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, it encourages individuals and companies to save by making cleaner choices when it comes to insulating their home or by purchasing more efficient equipment. Consequently, carbon pricing is the cornerstone of Canada’s action plan on clean growth and climate change.

Pricing pollution has proven itself around the world, including in Canada, where it has helped us solve problems such as acid rain while supporting clean growth and innovation. Carbon pricing has been introduced into almost half the world’s economy.

A recent analysis published by Environment and Climate Change Canada confirms that carbon pricing across the country will considerably reduce carbon pollution while maintaining strong economic growth. According to the study, carbon pricing could reduce carbon pollution across Canada by 90 million tonnes by 2022, the equivalent of taking 26 million cars off the road for a year or closing more than 20 coal-fired power plants.

Carbon pricing will go a long way toward achieving Canada’s target for 2030. However, this is not the only thing we are doing to reduce emissions. Canada’s climate change action plan includes many other measures which, in conjunction with carbon pricing, will help reduce pollution.

The study also found that GDP growth would remain strong with a nationwide price on carbon pollution. Canada's GDP is expected to grow by approximately 2% a year between now and 2022, with or without carbon pricing. This does not include the huge opportunity of clean innovation. Carbon pricing will help Canadian companies create jobs and compete successfully in the global shift to cleaner growth, an opportunity the World Bank estimates will be worth $23 trillion globally between now and 2030.

More than 80% of Canadians already live in jurisdictions with carbon pricing in place. Our approach recognizes the actions already taken by B.C., Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec. Those provinces had the strongest economic growth in the country last year. The pan-Canadian approach builds on the leadership taken by these jurisdictions and provides all provinces and territories with the flexibility to implement the type of system that suits their circumstances. It also sets some common criteria to ensure the price on pollution is fair and effective across the country.

To ensure that a price on carbon pollution is in place across Canada, the government committed to develop and implement a federal carbon pricing system in any province or territory that requests it or that does not have a carbon pricing system that meets the federal standard. Our federal carbon pricing system has two components: a charge on fossil fuels that would generally be paid by fuel producers or distributors, and a performance-based system for industrial facilities, called the output-based pricing system.

All revenue from the federal system will be transferred to the jurisdiction of origin. The funds may be used in different ways, including helping homeowners and companies and investing more heavily in programs or technology aimed at reducing carbon pollution.

The main objective of the measure is not to generate revenue for the government but to change how we use carbon-based energy resources and create incentives that will help Canada gain a competitive advantage in the emerging low-carbon economy.

To date, the governments of British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, and Ontario have implemented carbon pricing and are using the revenue generated in various ways. They can give the money directly to homeowners and companies, cut taxes, or finance programs aimed at reducing the cost of clean technology.

Provinces and territories have until September 1 to confirm their carbon pricing approach. Direct revenue from the application of the federal carbon pricing backstop will remain in the jurisdiction of origin.

In 2017, the four provinces with carbon pricing systems in place were also the top four performers in GDP growth across Canada. That is the result of a long list of factors, but anyone who says that carbon pricing hurts economies is not basing their arguments on the evidence.

Since 2007, B.C.'s carbon tax has reduced emissions by 5% to 15%. Meanwhile, provincial real GDP grew more than 17% from 2007 to 2015 and per capita gasoline demand dropped 15% over that period. B.C.'s growing clean technology sector now brings an estimated $1.7 billion in annual revenue. We see the same results in other countries. In Sweden, which has the world's highest carbon tax at 137 euros per tonne, GDP and industry have grown while emissions have dropped.

In addition to estimating the costs, it is important to consider the benefits of reducing carbon pollution. This includes the avoided costs of climate change, the long-term financial benefits of transitioning to a cleaner economy, and the benefits that may flow from innovations driven by carbon pricing.

Pollution from coal power plants results in health issues that cost the health care system over $800 million annually, according to a study performed by the Pembina Institute in 2014. Canadian businesses already know carbon pricing makes good sense and will help ensure they remain competitive in the emerging low-carbon economy.

Carbon pollution pricing helps Canadian companies create jobs and gain a competitive edge in the worldwide shift toward cleaner growth. According to the World Bank, this opportunity represents $23 billion dollars between now and 2030. Approximately 85% of the Canadian economy is already subject to a carbon pricing system, and every province has undertaken to adopt some form of carbon pricing.

Canada is creating a business culture that will strengthen the growth of a clean economy. Here are some examples of success stories: CarbonCure, a company that retrofits existing concrete plants so that they can recycle waste carbon dioxide during production to make stronger and more environmentally friendly concrete; Solar Vision, a Quebec company that supplies solar lighting technologies; Enerkem, a company that converts Edmonton’s non-recyclable garbage into fuel and common chemicals; and Agrisoma Biosciences, a biotechnology firm in Gatineau that provides a number of low-carbon options for the biofuel industry.

Making sure that carbon pricing is implemented across the country is a matter of fairness for all Canadians. For 10 years, the Harper government did nothing about climate change. Canadians deserve a plan that will stimulate innovation and create well-paying jobs for the middle class. This is it.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct my hon. colleague. She should be very careful when stating statistics.

To begin with, I am a member of Parliament for the province of British Columbia and I have done a lot of work in this area. There are a number of great documents that attribute much of the lower emissions to the global recession that started in 2008, which coincidentally was the year that our provincial carbon tax was implemented, and the increase in cross-border spending is contributing as well.

I want to ask my hon. colleague something. We have had a number of colleagues stand up and say that this somehow is going to be a magic wand with which we are going to be able to solve natural disasters. My province of British Columbia and my riding of Cariboo—Prince George have gone through one of the most unprecedented wildfire seasons in our province's history. We are also seeing unprecedented flooding. We have had a carbon tax in place for 10 years, and it has not helped us in those areas.

How is it that the government can say that this measure is going to end all the natural disasters?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, who shares our concerns about the environment. We need to do something about climate change, find solutions, and work together so that the planet remains viable for our children and grandchildren. We must put a price on pollution in order to fight climate change, and we have a plan for doing just that.

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

Madam Speaker, some future generation, if there is one, will watch the debates here in the House and weep at the tragedy of the Conservatives denying that there is any reason to bring in a carbon tax, at the Liberals patting themselves on the back as if bringing in a carbon price will solve the problem, and at my hon. friend for Cariboo—Prince George, who thinks that British Columbia's carbon tax by itself was supposed to arrest a global problem.

I put it to my friend for Ottawa—Vanier that we have a carbon budget. The scientists have told us that we can afford to put no more than 590 billions tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere to stay below two degrees, which is the Paris target. Last year we emitted 50 billion tonnes, which means we now only have a budget of 540 billion tonnes.

Canada's plan should be tied to a carbon budget. It should work backwards toward what we need to do to do our fair share to ensure not that we avoid extreme weather events—we cannot—but that we hang on to something that looks like human civilization so that our children have a livable world.

Where is that plan broken down, greenhouse gas tonne by greenhouse gas tonne, into actions taken by a government? That plan is only in our imaginations and does not yet exist, but we must see it soon.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for saying that we all want a future for our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren.

I truly believe that we must move forward with our plan to price carbon. It is one of the least expensive means of reducing pollution and, at the same time, it fosters clean innovation. A price on pollution will encourage individuals to save money by taking public transit, buying a fuel-efficient vehicle, lowering the thermostat, or better insulating their homes. We must encourage Canadians to work with us to reduce pollution in Canada.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I respect the member, my Liberal colleague to my right. We are on the same committee.

She heard yesterday at committee that the carbon tax is really hurting our aboriginal children and their ability to go to school. What we heard was that it will actually restrict them from going to school. My question to her is this: How else is this hurting the average Canadian family? What will this carbon tax cost the average Canadian family?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question.

We do have a problem, and we need to work together to fight climate change. We have a plan in which every community can participate, especially indigenous communities, which also have ways of making sure that their homes and community spaces are safe and secure.

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

Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be splitting my time with the member for York—Simcoe.

I want to thank my hon. colleague for Carleton for bringing this issue to light. As we get late in the day and late in the debate, it is important that we remind the House of the motion. Somehow we veer off. I have found myself fascinated today by the fact that the Liberals are spinning themselves around in such a tight web trying to convince everyone that taxing the Canadian population is the right way to go and that it is going to solve all the evils with respect to climate, climate change, floods, famine, fire, and feast, whatever the case is.

The motion says:

That, given the government's carbon tax will impose higher gas prices, and making “better choices”, as the Prime Minister suggested, will not help most Canadians heat their homes and buy groceries, the House call on the government to cancel plans for new taxes that would further raise prices on consumers.

As I was preparing for my talk this afternoon, I read an article. John Robson, of the National Post, wrote a really fascinating article. I would encourage anyone who is watching at home to Google the article. The headline is “What do the Liberals know about carbon tax that they won't tell us?” He says:

It’s a signature policy they insist will work. But they are exploiting a hard-won reputation for cluelessness on key promises from electoral reform to marijuana legalization to convince us they have no idea how this one would function either.

I thought, “Boy, did John Robson nail that.”

The member for Carleton, shortly after the last election, asked the government just how much a carbon tax will cost Canadians and how much the impact will be on emissions. He got the answer back from finance department officials, and the answer was redacted, which effectively means that it was blacked out.

The government knows. It knows full well what the impact of this carbon tax is going to be, but it continues to refuse to release that information, in spite of the fact that the opposition has asked numerous times. I would suggest that we have asked this question up to 60 to 70 times in committee and in the House of Commons, through debates like this and through question period. Each time, the government has skirted the answer and said that climate change is real and has given these talking points without directly answering the question for Canadians.

One of the other interesting things Robson said in this National Post article was this:

if they think we won’t find out before the next election, they’d better get marijuana legalized fast because sobriety is doing nothing for their judgment.

That is clearly what this is about. This is why, again, we are spending the day trying to convince the government not to raise any more taxes if it wants to impose a carbon tax.

Excuse me for being cynical. Excuse all of us for being cynical. Excuse Canadians for being cynical, but we have seen the story play out in the past. In the last election, the Liberals made several promises. One was on the issue of electoral reform. How is that working out, hon. members? It is not quite working out, because the Liberals backtracked on that. They also made a promise of no more prorogation or omnibus bills. How is that working out, hon. members? It is not working out too well.

The Liberals also talked about veterans' pensions. They said that they were going to restore lifelong pensions to veterans. Members could go across this country, as I did, and talk to as many veterans as I have. They, rightly, know that the government failed on the issue of veterans' pensions. In fact, the Liberals also said that they would never take veterans to court, and we found out through an Order Paper question that the government has spent $37 million fighting veterans in court since 2016. How did that work out?

There was the middle-class tax cut, the signature policy of the government. The Prime Minister stood with his hand over his heart and said that the government was going to raise taxes on the top 1% and lower taxes for middle-class and lower-income Canadians. The most important thing he said was that it was going to be revenue neutral. We are hearing that about the carbon tax. This is going to be revenue neutral, and somehow it is not going to cost Canadians.

As a matter of fact, on this issue, on the issue of the middle-class tax cut, as reported by the PBO independently, it was not revenue neutral, and it is going to cost Canadians $8.9 billion over a period of six years. Who pays for that? Of course, it is middle-class and lower-income Canadians.

One of the things the Liberals said as well is that they were going to raise taxes on the top one per cent. We found out through further study that higher-income Canadians benefited from that middle-class tax cut to the tune of $800, while lower-middle-class Canadians gained only about $50.

When they say that this is going to be revenue neutral, excuse us again for being cynical and not believing the government. That is the basis of the argument we are talking about today. It is one of sheer trust. The government has said things in the past, and it has failed to follow through on them. The same thing will happen here.

The GST is a perfect example. The member for Carleton asked finance officials today at committee about the GST and the collection of the GST. They said that it is not going to be passed on to Canadians. It is actually going to be collected by the government. This is nothing but a tax grab by the Liberal government, and it is a tax grab to support its insatiable appetite to spend money.

The government does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. That spending problem is not for the priorities of Canadians. I would suggest that it is to meet the Liberals' obligations to their globalist pet projects. That is why we are seeing a lot of money leave this country. That is what is upsetting Canadians.

The disproportionate effect this is going to have will be in my riding, particularly with Barrie—Innisfil household incomes. The median household income in 2015, according to Statistics Canada, was $77,904 in Barrie. In Innisfil, it was $83,516, and in Simcoe County, it was $76,489. These are communities of individuals and families that are already struggling with debt. We know that the average Canadian family has $1.70 in debt for every dollar it takes in. By stretching them even more and imposing carbon taxes on those families for heating their homes, for driving around, and for doing the things they do day in and day out, it is going to have a negative effect on those families I represent in Barrie—Innisfil.

It is not going to be the Prime Minister who is going to pay disproportionately. It is not going to be the finance minister, and it is not going to be the Minister of Environment. They are going to be well taken care of. They have great salaries. They get cars and are chauffeured around. They fly all over the place, and it is questionable whether they even pay for their meals, because they get a per diem. The cost of all this stuff that is going to happen is going to increase for these families that are not making what the Prime Minister is making. Nor do they have trust funds. That is the reality of this.

This is why we are saying that if they are going to impose a carbon tax on Canadians, it will negatively affect them and their pocketbooks and their ability to pay. Things are getting more expensive, such as the cost of groceries and food. Interest rates are increasing. Everything is designed to squeeze these families to a point where they cannot do any more. Why? Again, it is because of the government's insatiable appetite to spend money.

The Liberals already proposed new taxes in the past. They proposed dental benefits taxes and an employee discount tax and a business tax. If it were not for the efforts of the opposition and Canadians who rose up against these things, they would have surely imposed these types of taxes.

Our motion is asking that the government stop the new taxes, because the Liberals are hurting the very Canadian families they are proposing to help. Under this plan, the more people make, the more they will save, while those making less will see less in tax savings. Should those making less not see a greater increase in those tax savings? How does imposing a carbon tax, and every other tax that will come from the government and has come from this government, help those families?

As Conservatives, we stand strongly for those families that are going to be negatively impacted by a carbon tax. Maybe people would agree to a carbon tax, but how are they to know, when the government will not release that information? They should stop the carbon tax, and if they are going to impose a carbon tax, they should stop any further taxes on an already overtaxed Canadian population.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, the Insurance Bureau of Canada has indicated that between 1983 and 2004, the insurance losses from catastrophic disasters averaged $373 million per year. Between 2005 and 2015, that amount tripled to $1.2 billion per year.

We have a strategy for pricing carbon pollution to ensure that we are taking federal leadership on this file and changing this challenge to an opportunity by not only reducing greenhouse gas emissions but by spurring innovation, with multi-trillions of dollars' worth of innovation and jobs.

I am wondering why the Conservative opposition is so stuck and opposed to these great opportunities for our children and grandchildren.

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

I reject the assertion, Madam Speaker, that imposing a carbon tax on Canadians and their families is going to stop floods and fires. The government has presented no evidence that any proposed carbon tax would stop any of these environmental issues and the issues of weather and climate. I completely reject that assertion, but more importantly, if they are going to suggest that to Canadians, as the Liberal Party is, then they should tell Canadians how much it is going to cost them, in terms of taxes, to mitigate what they are presuming will occur with respect to floods and fires. It is a ridiculous assertion, and I wish Liberals would stop using that argument, because it is disingenuous. They should tell Canadians the truth, and then maybe they will buy into it.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to think that most of us here believe that climate change is real and that it is caused by humans. I know there are some Conservatives who do not. Granted, if we say that it is real, and we have to do something about it, every economist will tell us that the cheapest, most efficient way of bringing down our carbon emissions is through a carbon tax. There are ways of protecting low-income families that are exposed to it. In British Columbia, there is a rebate. In Alberta, there is a rebate. In fact, 40% to 50% of British Columbians and Albertans are better off under the carbon tax, because they get more money back than they have to spend.

I would ask the member what the Conservatives' plan is for bringing down carbon emissions so that we can do our bit for the world.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it kind of funny that not only the NDP but the Liberals are asking for the Conservatives' plan. We are going to come up with a plan, and our leader has said that the plan will not involve a carbon tax. He has been unambiguous and very clear about the fact that it will not involve a carbon tax, because on this side of the House, we do not believe in taxing people more than they should be in terms of providing those types of government services. However, on the other side, and clearly on the NDP side, they say that a tax is going to solve all the ills of world weather and the effects of floods and fires.

That is not a plan. It is actually a redistribution of wealth. We have seen in Ontario that the wealth has gone to Liberal insiders, and I would not be surprised if that is going to be the case in this case.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, last week the Leader of the Opposition said that his party would meet the Paris targets without a price on carbon. He did not tell us what the plan is. I was going to ask what it is, but now we know that they do not have one yet.

Yesterday the Conservatives brought in Jason Kenney, their carbon attack dog. Since my friend likes to refer to the National Post, one of the headlines said, “Even Jason Kenney's political language can't hide lack of alternative to carbon tax”. The article, by John Ivison, went on to say, “Even Kenney can't finesse that inconvenient truth.”

Since the Conservatives do not have a plan, and the member does not like our plan, what is he telling his constituents in Barrie—Innisfil?

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

I tell them quite simply, Madam Speaker, that we will have a plan, and that plan will not include taxing them.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a point in the life of many governments at which, after campaigning and claiming that they were going to represent their constituents, the members who were elected change. They cease to represent their constituents in Ottawa and begin to represent Ottawa in their constituency.

In this debate we see exactly that phenomenon. I can tell members, having observed that pattern for the close to half a century that I have been closely following politics, that I have always been very careful not to allow that to happen in my case. That is why today I am going to speak from the perspective of my constituents.

Generally speaking, the people in York—Simcoe are hard-working, young families. They are not wealthy. They are not entitled. They are just looking for the freedom to be able to work hard, succeed, and make a brighter future for themselves and their children. They find that tougher and tougher. It is harder to make ends meet. Why? They keep running up against the rules, barriers, and taxes of politicians who think they know better how to run the lives of those individuals than those individuals themselves. They think they can make better decisions about their lives than those families can for their own future.

We saw that in Ontario, where families now struggle under unbelievably high hydro bills and a kind of funny, fancy accounting that means that those costs, which mainly paid off insiders in the name of really good things that smart people thought were better for them, are in fact causing them to make some hard and tough choices. They have to choose what they will give up in their lives altogether to make ends meet, such as their kids playing hockey, a vacation, or the things they used to enjoy once a year maybe, because they cannot meet those costs.

Their children are going to face tougher costs in a province where now, in just the time the Liberals have been in government, the debt has almost tripled. That does not even include the additional debt the Liberals have moved forward on the higher costs of hydro, which are crippling the way those families live.

Those typical families in York—Simcoe do not have a subway. They are not like a prime minister from Montreal, a finance minister from downtown Toronto, or an environment minister from downtown Ottawa who can walk to work. They are not like that. They have to travel to work by automobile. They live in homes that have to be heated in winters that are as cold as this past one was, a winter where the April heating bills were higher than the March heating bills. They are having trouble making those ends meet.

Therefore, when someone tells them that it is good for them to pay more for all these things, and they are already trying really hard to pay their taxes and make ends meet, something does not ring true. That tells them that the people who are out there making those speeches are no longer speaking for them but for some powerful bureaucrat in Ottawa who has an idea and an ideological agenda.

Then, when they learn that those powerful bureaucrats have written up documents saying what this will cost those individual families, and are then hiding it from those families, and the politicians in the Liberal government have become the wall of silence protecting those smart bureaucrats and hiding that information from Canadians, they know pretty quickly who is on their side of the wall and who is on the other side. They see that those Liberal politicians are busy keeping their constituents in the dark, imposing costs on them without telling them, and then refusing to even tell them what the so-called benefits might be and what reductions will be achieved in this carbon that is so bad.

That is the indication of a government that has ceased to represent the people and is now representing itself and an elite class in the country that thinks it knows best.

We see that in small businesses in Ontario that are regulated to death, with double the regulations of any other province. Small businesses cannot cope. They have trouble making ends meet. They are so busy dealing with inspectors and filling out forms that they do not have time to serve customers and make money anymore. Why? Smart politicians and officials and a provincial Liberal government think they know better how to run their businesses and their lives. However, it is not that way, and this debate we are having is in the exact same vein.

If we want to know what is at the bottom of “the Liberals know better than we do”, it came through very clearly when the Prime Minister was recently asked about these high gas prices. My constituents keep asking me about this and sending me the statistic that the last time gas prices were this high, oil was well over $100 a barrel. Now the price of oil is around $60 a barrel, but gas prices are this high. It is not unreasonable of them to ask why. Some think that somebody is doing them a bad turn. To use an inelegant term, some say that someone is screwing them. Some use even more inelegant terms. They do not understand why, but then they see why when the Prime Minister says these high gas prices are “exactly what we want”.

Well, that explains the gap, does it not? If the big oil companies, with the Prime Minister guarding their backs, have the freedom to raise gas prices at will because that is what the government has said it wants, do we not think they will take that chance? Therefore, the carbon tax is not the only cause of this. The government sent a signal, saying, “Go and raise gas prices, go and pick on the little consumers, and do it all you want.” Is it any wonder that is exactly what is happening?

This is what the ordinary mother in Keswick is facing when she wants to take her kids to hockey practice, or the ordinary mother in Holland Landing when the kids have to go to a soccer game and the fields are all the way in Mount Albert. They cannot wait for a bus, because there is no bus. They have to drive. It is the only way to get there. However, it is a lot more expensive suddenly. The hydro bill has gone up, and dad said they were making a little less this month because he has to comply with another regulation that just came from the provincial government.

It is time people in these positions of leadership here in Ottawa realized who we speak for. I am speaking in particular to the Liberal government members, who have so quickly not only forgotten whom they represent but have then also shown the craven arrogance of refusing to be candid and honest with their own constituents about the decisions they are making, why they are making them, and the policy basis for them. There is no defence in the world for refusing to explain the cost of that carbon tax.

There are analysts who have looked at it. Of course, in its study that is coming from the federal government, the University of Calgary has said that the carbon tax can reasonably be seen in the province of Ontario as ultimately having a cost of $707 annually. That is hitting electricity, home heating, gasoline, and other indirect costs in every single business.

All those business people running their small businesses, such as roofers, contractors, and plumbers in York Simcoe, have to get everywhere by driving. They have to drive to pick up supplies. They cannot go in a Smart car. They need a pickup truck, and that uses a fair bit of gas. It is the only way they can make their living. However, these taxes are punishing them for trying to make a living so that they can pay other taxes and take care of their families. Less and less is left at the end of every month. They have a tougher time making ends meet, and nobody in the Liberal government seems to care.

There is a smug arrogance. The Liberals are not going to tell us what the real cost is, even when we have analysts tell us there is a very real and significant cost, and a Prime Minister who gives the green light to gas companies to raise prices even higher because that is the policy objective. Higher gas prices are “exactly what we want”. That is what the current Liberal Prime Minister said.

Guess what? We are getting what the Prime Minister wants, but it is not what the people want. They care about their environment passionately, but do not talk to me in York—Simcoe about a Liberal government that cares about the environment. The Liberal government cancelled the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund, which has done unprecedented, positive things for that local environment. Without consultation and without talking to the people, the government just cancelled it out and out. The harm to those people's local environment is done, so they do not believe any of this talk about helping the environment. They look at a carbon tax as only a cash grab, and in all the things that money is used for, they do not see any benefits at all; they do not see anything that helps them.

My time is up, but I am sure I will have an opportunity to say more in answer to questions. However, I will encourage everybody not to forget they are here to represent their constituents and not the Liberal government.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is an incredibly important conversation. It can actually be broken down to a philosophical divide about the responsibility of members of Parliament not only to recognize the needs of Canadians today and what is immediately in front of us, but also to ensure there is a future for our country and the next generation. We have been entrusted with a sacred responsibility, and carbon is definitely something we need to focus on.

This price on pollution ensures we have an incentive to be able to change behaviour in this country. Clearly, the members opposite feel there is another way of doing that. I would be very interested to hear how they plan on incentivizing the change in behaviour for the future.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome that question because it reveals exactly the Liberals' attitude that they know best and that Canadians must change their behaviour. Which behaviour should my constituents in York—Simcoe change to make the Liberal member happy? Should they take their kids out of soccer so they do not use the car to go to soccer? Should they shut down their roofing business because they need a truck to do that work? Are they to stop heating their home during the winter and freeze in the dark? Those behaviours are what the hon. member is asking my constituents to change.

Those families feel that there are people in Ottawa, far away, who do not know their lives, saying they are living the wrong way. People in Ottawa are saying their kids should not have the right to play soccer, or maybe that they should not play hockey. Let us think about making ice in a rink in April, when it is warm outside. That is so bad for the environment. Well, guess what? People should be given some freedom. This country is based on freedom. The choices the Liberals are trying to impose on them are choices nobody should be asked to make.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I work with my colleague on a regular basis and I hold him in very high esteem. I believe him when he says that he represents the interests of the people in his riding. Obviously, he is a man of experience who knows the rules of governance and the parliamentary process. I am going to ask him a question that he may find somewhat forthright.

I understand that he finds that the Liberals are imposing their will on the country. We are all familiar with their belief in their royal and divine right to hand down laws. It bothers all of us. However, I believe that a carbon tax is appropriate.

I would like to ask my colleague, whom I hold in high regard, how he suggests we fight climate change.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, climate change has been going on for a long time. In geological terms, it was not that long ago that we were under a mile of ice here. Of course, that has all melted. The landscape where I live was all once formed by glaciers. Lake Simcoe, which I talked about earlier, was once a much larger post-glacial lake that has shrunk. The climate has been changing and continues to change, and there is lots of evidence that there are human impacts on it.

The question is, how do we make a difference? When the Conservative government was in power, our government actually reduced greenhouse gases. Our approach was a regulatory approach, not one that taxed each and every Canadian. We did not tax people like my constituents, who have no choice and have very difficult lives. Instead, we told big emitters to find a way. We said that there was technology out there that they could use to reduce emissions from their manufacturing operations, automobiles, and so on. That regulatory approach was salutary and tremendously successful. It improved the fuel efficiency of automobiles.

Those things were done well, and guess what? They actually benefited families in my constituency. If the automobile they buy is more fuel efficient, that is a good thing for them. However, if they just have to pay more for gasoline, that is a bad thing for them because they do not have that choice. They can make the choice of buying the more fuel-efficient car perhaps, but they do not have a choice about paying for the fuel to go in the car.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

Today we are debating the Conservative Party's motion about the carbon tax. The motion claims that the carbon tax will make it difficult for most Canadians to fuel their cars, heat their homes, and buy groceries.

I will say, off the top, that we have to do all we can to fight climate change. Along with the rest of the world, we made commitments in Paris to cut our greenhouse gas emissions. We have to bring our emissions down significantly in the next 12 years, from well over 700 megatonnes to just over 500 megatonnes per year.

Carbon emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, are a form of pollution. We, in the NDP, believe in the concept that polluters must pay for their actions. If I produce pollution by driving my car, I should pay something back to society to reflect the environmental cost that I am putting on other Canadians. A carbon tax is a perfect way to do that.

Carbon pricing, either through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, is also the most cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. A properly designed carbon tax can get us well on the way to meeting those targets, and it would do so at the least cost to all Canadians.

If, as this Conservative motion states, people will have trouble heating their homes, fuelling their cars, and putting groceries on the table after the price of gas has gone up by 10¢ a litre over the next five years, then perhaps the Conservatives should be looking at why it is expensive to buy or rent a home in Canada or why people are living in poverty. If people are so close to poverty that they cannot afford those things when the price of gas goes up a couple of cents, something is clearly wrong. The Conservatives would better fight poverty by joining us, here in the NDP, to stop pension theft, fix the employment insurance system, and get the government to speed up its action on affordable housing.

The April 1 bump-up in the B.C. carbon tax added only two cents a litre to the price of gas. Well after that, in the last couple of weeks, gas prices went up by about 20¢ a litre. It had nothing to do with the carbon tax, or the Kinder Morgan pipeline dispute, for that matter.

The fact is that we have had a carbon tax in British Columbia for the last 10 years or so, and it has worked. It has been effective in reducing per capita fuel consumption, and the B.C. economy has been leading the country all that time.

Lower-income British Columbians, the ones the Conservatives are now so concerned about, actually come out ahead. They receive a rebate, so they actually gain money through the carbon tax. Buying groceries and heating their homes are actually easier for them because of that tax. All British Columbians benefit through lower income taxes made possible by the carbon tax revenues.

The same goes for Alberta. Under the Alberta carbon tax, people making less than $33,000 per year will be better off with the carbon tax than without it. In fact, in both B.C. and Alberta, 40% to 50% of residents actually benefit financially from the carbon tax.

However, we should not be quibbling over the cost of the carbon tax. The real question before us, the elephant in the room, is the immense cost of inaction. It is the huge cost of climate change itself, global climate change. These are costs that have been hitting individual Canadians, businesses, and all levels of government.

I was home last weekend and toured some of the flooded areas of my riding. We are seeing torrents of water where formerly there were only tiny streams one could step over. There are flooded rural neighbourhoods that have never seen water on the surface before.

The Okanagan Valley is a semi-desert. Many of the small lakes in the south Okanagan do not even have outlets because they usually do not receive enough water to fill up their basins. Now, homes, farms, and vineyards around these lakes and streams are underwater. This is all from low-elevation melt and high water tables left over from last year's flooding. In the surrounding mountains, we have had 150% of the normal snowpack, so when things really warm up in the next couple of weeks, we could have widespread flooding in the valleys.

As I said, this is the second year in a row we have had flooding in my riding. I have not seen a cost estimate for last year's flooding, but it impacted many of my constituents, who had water in their basements for weeks on end, pumping water out as the water table rose to record levels and then stayed there all summer.

I have seen cost estimates from last spring's flooding in Quebec and eastern Ontario. Those floods have been costed at over $220 million.

Back in B.C. last year, we went straight from floods to fires. Indeed, the main crews working on the flooded areas right now in the Okanagan are forest fire crews. Everyone is worried about what will happen when summer comes. Not only will we have the high-elevation snowmelt to contend with, but the fire crews will be sent elsewhere to do what they are really trained for: fight fires.

Forest fires in B.C. last year cost over $500 million just to fight. They cost $127 million in insured damage, and the cost to the forest industry is incalculable. I have not seen even an estimate of that. Two years ago, in 2015, forest fires in B.C. cost $300 million to fight.

Again, those numbers do not take into account the cost to people who lost their homes and livelihoods or the cost to forest companies that had to close down mills during the fires and then reopened them to a new reality, with millions of hectares of forest burned. The forest industry was already reeling from the loss of half the pine trees in the interior of British Columbia through the mountain pine beetle epidemic, something else that can be attributed directly to climate change.

We had the Fort McMurray fire in 2016. The estimated cost of the overall economic impact was almost $10 billion for that one fire. The Calgary flood of 2013 was almost $6 billion in costs.

It is estimated that the financial impact of climate change on the Canadian economy will be over $40 billion per year by 2030. Canadians are paying for climate change every year. Many are losing their jobs or their homes. Some have even lost their lives during these catastrophes.

While I support the government's carbon tax policy in broad terms, we need to do more to meet our Paris targets. Already it is widely recognized that we cannot possibly meet our 2030 target. Canadians want to do the right thing for the environment, but we have to give them more choices.

I have heard it brought up by the Conservatives that we do not have a choice. If the government would do things to give us more choices, we would have a better policy. If we gradually make gas more expensive so that Canadians are getting a market signal that they should buy less gas, maybe we should make it easier for them to buy electric vehicles. We have to provide more charging stations. We should provide rebates and incentives in licensing and parking fees. We have to make that shift.

If we make it more expensive to heat our homes with natural gas, we must provide incentives and rebates so that Canadians can renovate their homes to make them more energy-efficient so they would not have to buy more natural gas. The ecoENERGY retrofit program did just that. From 2007 to 2012, it helped hundreds of thousands of Canadians retrofit their homes, lowering their energy bills by 20%, creating thousands of good local jobs, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by three tonnes per year for each house. While the program cost the federal government $900 million over five years, it leveraged more than $4 billion in retrofit investments by Canadian families. When homeowners invest in new windows, insulation, and other energy-saving projects, that money circulates through communities across the country.

I will simply say that carbon pricing is the cheapest, most effective way to fight climate change. The Conservatives should be praising its virtues and promoting it across the country. In fighting the carbon tax, the Conservatives are basically saying they do not believe in climate change. They are saying they are willing to play on people's fears to make political points while they damage our efforts to fight climate change.

Climate change is the most serious issue of our time. We have to work together on this. It should not even be up for debate.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments. I must say that, as Minister of Public Safety, I am proud to have contributed to, or should I say invested in, the last Conservative budget by updating the maps of flood-prone areas. It is one of the first steps in being able to tackle the problem and, unfortunately, it had not been done in previous decades. Now that we have up-to-date maps of flood-prone areas, we are in a better position to take action and determine what infrastructure is needed to solve the problems caused by climate change. There were also funds allocated in the infrastructure program.

My question for my colleague is very simple. I am in full agreement with him that climate change has had a serious impact. Now, would he not like the government to tell him what the impact of the carbon tax will be? How will it impact greenhouse gas emissions? Does he not agree that the government, for the sake of transparency and to sell the tax that will be used for who knows what, should let us know how it will help fight climate change?

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

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of things in that question. I will start by saying that we are very happy to see government investment in flood plain mapping this year in the Okanagan to help us plan for the future.

In terms of getting answers as to how much this would cost, this is all being rolled out provincially, and it will differ province by province. In Alberta, there are estimates of how much it would cost based on people's income. As I said, for people making $33,000 or less, it would actually be a benefit. For those making $100,000, it would cost maybe $300 a year, and twice that for those making $200,000 a year. We have seen an estimate that our output of carbon emissions will be reduced by 90 megatonnes over the time period we are talking about, if that is the answer the member wants.

What is critical is that every economist would say that this is the most efficient and cost-effective way of bringing down our emissions, so we should embrace that, go with it, and do the other things I mentioned to help Canadians bring their own costs down.

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

Madam Speaker, I have listened to a great deal of debate on the issue today. One member made a reference to representing constituents. I always thought it was great how the Prime Minister would say that our responsibility as members of Parliament is to bring issues from our constituencies to Ottawa. This is a good, healthy debate, and I will go back to its origin.

The Prime Minister and other stakeholders went to Paris, where an agreement was reached, and then to Vancouver. Countries around the world recognize the value of having a price on pollution. There are provinces across the country saying that this is a positive thing and that we should have a price on carbon. In fact, it is the provinces that would generate the revenues with the price on carbon and, at the end of day, have the opportunity to redistribute the monies being collected.

It seems to me that whether it is countries around the world or provinces from different regions, everyone understands the need for a price on carbon, except for the official opposition. I would ask if the member has any thoughts as to why the official opposition does not want to listen to what Canadians and other countries around the world are doing.

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

Madam Speaker, it is all political. The Conservatives are doing this because they want to score political points by sowing fear among Canadians that this will really impact them in a terrible way, when in fact that is patently false. British Columbia, as I said, has had a carbon tax for 10 years, and it has worked. It has done what it set out to do. There are programs within it so that low-income families do not suffer the extra cost, and actually benefit from the rebate.

A well-planned carbon tax is the most efficient, cost-effective way to bring down greenhouse gas emissions. If the Conservatives had another plan, we can be sure that it would cost two to four times as much as this one.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Consular Affairs; the hon. member for Saskatoon West, Public Transportation; and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Pensions.