Debates of June 12th, 2018

Member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every time I enter or leave this venerable Chamber, I greet you with reverence. I offer this greeting to you as a colleague, and as someone who has also become a friend. Most of all however, I offer it to my country, to its people, to my constituents, and to this institution; I trust you would not hold that against me.

This country, my country, is Canada. When compared to the history of humanity, Canada is a very recent project in which we all participate on a daily basis. In this sense, we are guided by the past to act in the present, to help build the future. Canada, my country, is also the motivation that led me to make one of the most painful decisions of my life: to sacrifice everything I hold dear to serve it. When I was asked to run, I thought it was the craziest idea ever.

I had everything. I was truly blessed. What else could I ask for?

The answer was provided by my loved ones, my family, my spouse, my friends, and my community. They suggested that it was not by seeking what more life could provide me that I would find the answer, but it was in searching for what I could provide to it. If the country is my prime motivation for coming into public life, my loved ones remain its inspiration.

Today, the irony remains that as they motivated me to serve here, they now reclaim me. The ultimate irony in joining this institution remains that if one does not have a life before coming here, he will soon have one. However, if one does have a life, he will quickly lose it.

I see another irony here. Two heads of state, one an elected official and the other a dictator, met today to try to avoid war. This clash between two types of governance underlies not only my decision to run for office but also my very existence. My father, Giovanni Di Iorio, was born in Casacalenda, as were both my grandfathers and all my other ancestors. All three were conscripted into the Italian army and suffered the horrors of conflict. For my grandfathers, it was the First World War, and for my father, it was the Second World War.

My father, my mother, my grandfathers, and my grandmothers were all traumatized by these horrendous events, but no one would ever know it. Their lives were the epitome of sacrifice and dedication.

What better inspiration could I have asked for to guide me following my decision to serve my country? I will share a recent example. Just two weeks ago, my grandmother, Giuseppina Ranellucci, was preparing a meal for 300 guests to raise money for children's hospitals. She worked for four days, from 7 a.m. to midnight, to organize everything. The fifth day she was not feeling well and decided to go to emergency.

Before she left, just in case she would not be coming back, she cleaned the house and mended some of her grandkids' clothing. After all that, she was too tired to go to the hospital, so she stayed home, and she felt better the next day. She did all of that and she is 86.

Mr. Speaker, with this background, all my colleagues will appreciate why I cannot stand here and say that I quit. In due time, I will submit a resignation. However, I will never, never quit. My devotion to my country, my family, my community, and this institution is such that I will forever be grateful, and I feel truly blessed for the extraordinary privilege of serving them.

[Member spoke in Italian]

[Translation]

The extension of the blue line, National Impaired Driving Prevention Week, the changes in the direction of the Supreme Court, the small business tax deal, and Italian heritage month in Canada are the highlights of my work in the House and in government.

For these successes, I want to thank my family first and foremost, but also my colleagues and constituents in the great riding of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for the extraordinary support and love that they have shown me. I will serve them and will always look after their well-being in recognition of the immense honour that they have given me.

I am the only one who knows the sacrifice that I made to get here. However, I want to share with the House the great benefit that I get from it. I arrived here, like most, alone. I will leave blessed to count my colleagues not only as comrades, but also as friends united forever by much stronger and lasting feelings, for like you, Mr. Speaker, whoever serves his country here comes out surrounded by sisters and brothers. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Global Climate Change and Clean Energy Leadership

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for King—Vaughan has five minutes remaining in her speech.

The hon. member for King—Vaughan.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will go a back a little to set the context for my future comments. I was at the point where I was saying that pollution is not free. Its costs are incurred through droughts, floods, smog, wildfires, and the effect it has on water, food, and the air that we breathe. The price we pay is our health and our future. The financial costs are very real.

Climate change alone is expected to cost our economy $5 billion a year by 2020, which is why our government has taken action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions nationally with our pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. Our national target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. That is to 517 megatonnes. Pricing carbon pollution will make a significant contribution to reaching Canada's 2030 target. By driving innovation and discouraging pollution, we estimate that carbon pricing could reduce emissions across Canada by between 80 megatonnes and 90 megatonnes in 2022.

Emission reductions in 2030 would depend on decisions about the design of carbon pollution pricing systems, including the carbon price after 2022. We have committed to review carbon pricing in 2022 with the provinces and territories to determine the path forward.

Carbon pricing is just one of the actions being taken to reduce emissions.

The pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change includes many complementary measures to reduce emissions such as accelerating the phase-out of traditional coal-fired electricity, reducing methane, and energy efficiency measures. Some of them we have been discussing in our committee today.

Our approach is based on understanding that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. By investing in the former, we are spurring the latter: supporting clean economic growth, creating jobs, strengthening the middle class, and helping everyone working hard to join it. This approach is good for business and it is good for Canadians. It is delivering long-term economic growth while giving people the support they need to succeed today. It is supporting a clean and healthy environment for future generations.

The results speak for themselves. Through innovation in clean technology and the production of cleaner fossil fuels, Canada's oil and gas sector is now a global leader in responsible energy production. I had the privilege to travel to the GLOBE conference this year with the committee and I was really impressed with all the innovation and technology that was going on in the industries to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases.

Other countries are now looking to Canada to share that expertise in more efficient and lower emission oil extraction and other green innovations. One of them we heard about at committee was the capture of carbon and putting it in concrete to make it stronger. We are solving two problems. A very carbon-intense industry is now looking to solve that problem so that we can feel good about using concrete again because it was not a good thing to do if we were looking green.

I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about what our government has been doing, the incredible work that is going on in reducing those incentives we had before that encouraged the oil and gas industry. We have been working very hard to have the economy and the environment go hand in hand. It is something that we have been talking about a lot in the House. I want to make sure that as we discuss this issue today, we keep in mind that the government is trying to do both at the same time and we are succeeding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the member for King—Vaughan for the wonderful work she does as chair of the environment committee.

The problem is that the government is not, at all, meeting the goals of the environment and the economy going hand in hand, because that is only true when the actions taken for the environment and the actions taken for the economy are actually moving in the same direction, and that is to reduce greenhouse gases.

As Bill McKibben says, “The first rule of holes is...stop digging.” Announcing new oil drilling off Atlantic Canada and, I cannot get over how determined the government is, building a pipeline to British Columbia, these are not good economics. The pipeline does not have a market. That is why Kinder Morgan wanted to get away from it. It is all about selling, overseas, a product that we could be refining in Canada, and reducing or eliminating the imports of foreign oil that we have into Atlantic Canada.

We do not have a climate plan. The Auditor General made this point. I would just say to my hon. colleague, would it not be better if we determined what the global carbon budget is. In other words, what is the amount of carbon humanity can put in the atmosphere before we cross over the point of no return, in terms of self-accelerating, runaway global warming? What is that number? What is Canada's share of making sure we do not cross that threshold? We could work backwards from there. It certainly would not be the old Harper target, which was never the Paris target but to which we remain committed. Thirty per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 is too little, too late.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the challenge would be very straightforward if we just needed to stop, everything needed to go in harmony together, and we would end up at some type of Utopia.

We can have the same goal at the end, but how we plan on getting there is different, obviously, from what my colleague on the other side has outlined. We believe that we need to proceed in a balanced way. We have to transition. We have to ensure that Canadian workers do not suffer as we make this transition to a low-carbon economy.

We have made significant investments in clean technology and innovation, science and research, in our workers and in our communities. We cannot abandon workers as we try to move forward on this with our international commitments to reduce carbon emissions. I know there is an urgency and a real worry that we are not going to get where we need to, and that things will become even more difficult to manage as we move on. However, we cannot abandon workers as we move forward with our international commitments.

This is an investment that we are making in Canada's future. We cannot just stop the use of fossil fuels and then continue to sell our resources at a discount because we cannot get it to world markets. We need the money to help fuel the transition that we are engaged in. That is why our plan is going to be successful.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I learned as a biologist is that nothing in life is free; nothing in nature is free.

The government has been a very strong proponent of renewable energy, but has never once looked at the environmental impacts of renewable energy. Every energy source needs to be examined exactly and rigorously.

Here is a report from Nature Canada in 2014. Back in 2014, Canada had 5,500 wind turbines that resulted in 45,000 bird deaths and 10,000 hectares of bird habitat lost. That was in 2014. Nature Canada predicted, since 2014, that there would be a tenfold increase in wind turbines in Canada. That has come to pass. The estimate is 450,000 bird deaths per year, and hundreds of thousands of hectares of bird habitat lost. Some of the species that are suffering mortalities are endangered species, especially the swallows.

In July 2016, there was a report in the London Free Press that talked about bats, 18.5 bat deaths per turbine. In Ontario alone, 42,500 bat mortalities per year, and four of these bat species are on the species at risk list.

The government is not enforcing the Migratory Birds Convention Act against some of these renewable energy projects. Communities and municipalities, especially in Ontario, have voiced extreme opposition to wind turbines. I personally am not a fan of this source of energy.

Why does the government allow this wildlife carnage to occur while at the same time promoting renewable energy and not enforcing Canada's environmental laws?

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know how intently the member opposite follows the impacts to wildlife species. Yes, there is a challenge with wind, but if we site wind in the right places it will be a significant contribution to our future. Therefore, the choice is making sure we get the research right and we are learning a lot as we are starting to go forward with this plan. I understand the member's comments and I appreciate them. Obviously we want to try to do better. It is about siting and that is really where we are going in the future.

Standing Order 69.1—Bill C-59

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

Mr. Speaker, just very briefly I rise today to respond to a point of order raised by the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly on June 11, 2018, with respect to the application of Standing Order 69.1 with regard to Bill C-59, an act respecting national security matters.

My hon. colleague, in his statement, argued the legislation should be considered as an omnibus bill and that the bill should be split during votes at third reading. In his intervention, the hon. opposition member argued that since Bill C-59 covers matters under the purview of the public safety department as well as the Department of National Defence, it is omnibus legislation as defined by Standing Order 69.1.

These dispositions of the bill are linked together by a common thread that represents the enhancement of Canada's national security and the safeguard of Canadians' rights and freedoms. To fulfill this objective, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that Bill C-59 would touch upon multiple acts since, as the hon. member mentioned in his statement yesterday, the Communications Security Establishment of Canada falls under the umbrella of the Department of National Defence.

Modernizing and rebuilding our national security framework is a massive undertaking. To do so while enhancing accountability and transparency, strengthening security, and protecting rights, and fulfilling the government's commitments to address legislation passed under the previous government, is even more complex. To meet these objectives, the bill needs to be envisioned as a whole, with the working pieces that could not achieve the main objective on their own. This legislation works in harmony to ensure that the fundamental objective to keep Canadians safe while protecting their fundamental charter rights is in fact met.

Consequently, I respectfully submit that Standing Order 69.1 should not be applied to Bill C-59.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. member for the information. It is duly noted.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Leadership on Climate Change and Clean Energy

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be here today in the House of Commons.

[Member spoke in aboriginal language]

I am very proud to bring greetings to all my relations and to speak on this motion put forward by the NDP.

As we know, in life it is always important to have balance. It is one of the things taught to us by indigenous elders, and I have been taught throughout my life to try to attempt to have balance. Often I do not have as much balance as I would like in my work, life, and personal spheres, but nonetheless, balance is important. I believe our government has really attempted and accomplished the balance we need in our economy and with the environment.

We know growing the economy goes hand in hand with protecting our environment. I believe there is no one in this chamber or anywhere in Canada who believes we should poison our waters or destroy the land on which we live. We are working very hard with provincial, federal, and territorial governments to adapt and ensure climate change does not impact Canadians and the world in a way that is too extreme.

We have developed the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. I thought I would spend a few moments listing all the environmental initiatives we have embarked upon with this government since 2015, which are numerous. In fact, it is actually quite a record and is something for all Canadians to be proud of.

For instance, we named Dr. Mona Nemer as Canada's new chief science adviser, ensuring the government's scientists are free to speak to Canadians about their work. Imagine, a scientist free to voice their opinion without government officials telling them that they can or cannot do so. We have empowered researchers to make discoveries that save lives, deal with climate change, and create jobs by investing $900 million through the Canada first research excellence fund, and $515 million through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada's NSERC discovery grants.

We are providing financing to support Canadian entrepreneurs of clean technology firms and attracting new business investment in sectors like clean energy. This includes $700 million in clean technology financing through an agreement with the Business Development Bank of Canada, the BDC. We are investing in clean growth with $3.5 million to build the final phase of the Enerkem Alberta Biofuels facility, the first of its kind to convert non-recyclable, non-compostable solid waste into energy.

There is $25 million for the guardians program, which works with indigenous Canadians to ensure they have a role to play in protecting the land and that they are the land protectors. This is an incredible accomplishment because when we reviewed this program at the finance committee, it was not sure if the program would actually receive funding. However, in the end, the government saw the need to engage with indigenous peoples and ensure they have an important role in being protectors of the land.

We are supporting the development of the indigenous tourism industry, which is largely based in rural areas, with $8.6 million in funding. We are investing $100 million in agricultural science and research to address emerging priorities such as climate change and water conservation to help mitigate biological threats to agriculture. We are making big polluters pay and are driving innovation for green solutions by pricing carbon pollution. That is an important one, making sure that people who pollute actually pay for it.

There are 270,000 indigenous people living in 275 communities who are benefiting from water and waste water projects across the country. Nearly 350 such projects are going to be completed or are now under way. We have lifted 52 boil water advisories on public systems for indigenous communities, and they now have access to reliable, clean drinking water.

We are protecting the wildlife, especially at-risk species and Inuit harvesting rights guaranteed under the Nunavut agreement in Tallurutiup Imanga-Lancaster Sound in the Arctic. The agreement will create Canada's largest marine conservation area. We are creating the largest conservation area in Canada, the largest in our history.

We are protecting Canada's coast and waterways with the historic $1.5-billion oceans protection plan, which aims to strengthen partnership and launch co-management practices with indigenous communities as one of its priorities.

We are accelerating the progress on existing rights and recognition tables to identify priorities for individual indigenous communities, working with indigenous communities to ensure their voices are heard. We are implementing UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in full partnership with indigenous peoples.

We are empowering indigenous women to engage with their communities to address issues that affect them or hinder their advancement in many aspects of their lives through an investment of nearly $5 million in 12 organizations across the country.

We are investing billions of dollars in light rail transit in Ontario.

We are reviewing neonicotinoid pesticides, the ones put on seeds, to examine the potential risk to Canada's health and environment and to develop a plan to protect the safety of Canadians and aquatic insects, which are important sources of food for fish, birds, and other animals. This is important for our bees. I know that there are many farmers in the chamber who will support that.

We are also taking a leadership role in tackling climate change and proudly played a strong role in helping to negotiate an ambitious Paris Agreement. We helped do that. It was not done before 2015, but it was certainly done after 2015.

We negotiated Canada's first-ever national climate plan with the provinces and territories in December 2016, which is a plan to meet or exceed our Paris Agreement commitments. We have launched a $1.4-billion low-carbon economy leadership fund to help reduce emissions in provinces and territories, particularly with investments in using energy more efficiently, which saves people and businesses money.

We are playing a leading role in the global ratification of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, an agreement to phase out polluting hydrofluorocarbons that could reduce the world's warming by as much as half a degree.

We are phasing out traditional coal-fired power by 2030, with an ambitious goal of attaining 90% of electricity generation from clean sources by 2030. We are limiting air pollution and reducing health issues, such as asthma, by reducing methane emissions by 40% to 45% by 2025.

We are banning microbeads, a major source of plastic pollution and a threat to aquatic life.

We are providing scientists with funding for research at the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory in Nunavut to contribute to leading-edge monitoring and research in the Arctic, which is heating up twice as fast as the rest of the world.

We are investing $2.65 billion to support climate action in developing countries, which are the hardest hit by climate change and have often limited capacity to prevent and cope with its consequences. We are told time and again that everyone has to contribute, but we in the western world have benefited more than those in the developing world by polluting. We are ensuring that those in the developing countries can also develop their economies but do so in a way that ensures that the environment is protected and that they can build jobs for their communities so that they are safer in the long term. It is like that here in Canada. There are many indigenous communities that could benefit from ensuring that they can develop the natural resources of this land, and we should not deny them that opportunity.

We have a new national park. Rouge National Urban Park became Canada's first national urban park when we passed Bill C-18. We increased the proportion of marine and coastal areas that are protected to 5%. We are moving forward to protect lands in the South Okanagan in British Columbia, with the possibility of creating a new national park reserve.

We are helping Canadians living in rural and remote communities reduce their reliance on diesel for electricity and heating by investing in affordable and clean energy solutions, such as hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, and bioenergy, through the clean energy innovation program. We are helping to build a clean economy and to reduce polluting greenhouse gases by launching the emerging renewable power program, which will fund projects on renewable energy technologies.

The list goes on and on. For instance, we are adding 1,200 green jobs for young people in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM, in natural resource sectors. That is 10 times more opportunities in the science and technology internship program.

We are supporting over 70 communities across Canada through three programs managed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities: the municipalities for climate innovation program, the municipal asset management program, and the green municipal fund. The funding will help communities develop sustainable practices and local solutions to infrastructure management that respect a clean environment. We are investing in clean growth with $3.5 million in a biofuels facility, the first of its kind.

The list goes on for pages about all the things we are doing. I am very proud of what our government is doing to ensure balance, to ensure that we have not only a clean environment, a good environment for our children and our grandchildren, but also jobs to ensure that we have a good standard of living for today and into the future.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced the Paris Agreement and its targets, which the Liberal government signed on to. One would expect that if the Liberals signed on to something and agreed to meet a certain target, they would meet it. It turns out that on the Paris Agreement target, which is about a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over 2005 levels by the year 2030, the Liberal government actually made filings at the United Nations that indicated that it was about 60 megatonnes short of meeting that goal. More recent reports indicate that it is actually closer to 90 megatonnes short of reaching its Paris Agreement target.

It is pretty clear that the government is not going to meet the target it put in place. Does he know how his government is actually going to make up that shortfall in greenhouse gas emissions reductions?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the environmental programs we see do not have to be a windmill or solar power panels we see outside buildings. In fact, they can actually be about energy efficiency and the things we do on a day-to-day level to ensure that we actually save energy and use the good types of energy.

For instance, our government is ensuring that we are a model for sustainability by greening our government. We are on track to reduce the government's own greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and by 80% by 2050. Even when I was in the Canadian Armed Forces, there were many times, 20 years ago, when someone would leave the door open. We would be heating the outdoors, because someone thought it was too hot, and we were not able to actually turn down the heat. The government today is actually reviewing a lot of the policies on how we conduct ourselves in our day-to-day operations to see if there are energy savings. It is listening to people on the ground, asking civil servants, and even our military personnel, what we can do to ensure that we can meet that target. That takes a lot of effort, because it is going to be an effort by all Canadians to ensure that we actually get there.

I am proud of our government. Not only are we committed to those agreements but we are intent on actually trying to achieve those targets. It is not simply empty rhetoric. It is actually something we hold in our hearts to be true that we will get there if we work day in and day out, and we are doing that.

We are passing a number of bills that are repairing the damage from the decade of darkness. We are engaging with our international counterparts to ensure that we are going to be meeting those targets. For instance, we are changing legislation through Bill C-69 and Bill C-68. We have also introduced Bill C-74, and the list goes on.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and hon. colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for outlining things we can do and are doing. However, I also want to follow up on the question my friend from Abbotsford just asked that was not answered. He stated clearly that the government is falling well below its target of reducing emissions by 30%. It was a commitment it made. In fact, it still has not told us its plan. It has not presented a plan on how it is going to achieve its target. In fact, it is going the other way. The Liberals made a promise that they were going to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, but instead, they bought a pipeline. It completely contradicts everything he just said.

My friend from Abbotsford outlined where we are going. We are going in the other direction. I appreciate the member's comments, but we still have not heard what the real plan is. My friend voted in support of my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou's bill, Bill C-262, to protect the rights of indigenous peoples through UNDRIP, and still the government is picking and choosing the nations it wants to apply that to. Instead, it is running roughshod over nations that are against the pipeline.

Could the member explain how the government believes it is okay to run roughshod over the rights of individual nations that have opposed this project and how he can justify the government supporting Bill C-262 as well.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy with the role the people of Winnipeg Centre played in ensuring that Bill C-262 was actually passed in the chamber, because they were great advocates, advocating not only to me but to other members of the chamber.

We are spending $5.7 billion over 12 years on the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, including $2 billion for the low-carbon economy fund, ensuring that Canada's communities are healthy and productive places to live. It includes investments of over $5 billion over five years toward infrastructure projects that protect communities and support Canada's ongoing transition to a clean-growth economy. We are supporting clean technologies and accelerating clean technology company growth by providing over $2 billion—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before I resume debate, I want to point out that I know that this is a topic that really is difficult to keep short and brief, and members have been asking questions and providing answers that are a little longer. I have been rather lenient. However, if members do not mind, try to keep the questions to a reasonable length, and we will see if we can get as many questions as possible. Keep an eye on the Speaker. He is here to help members out. When I give members the signal, it is time to stop.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to the NDP motion regarding clean energy and a just transition.

I am also honoured to be splitting my time with my hon. colleague and friend from Kootenay—Columbia.

The NDP believe that Canada should be investing in clean renewable energy resources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal technologies, that create good-quality, long-lasting jobs for today's workers and future generations.

In my riding, there are some hard-working, innovative entrepreneurs and indigenous communities that are leading the field of clean energy solutions. I will spend most of my time speaking about their work and experiences.

Hakai Energy Solutions, in Cumberland, B.C., is owned and operated by entrepreneur Jason Jackson. His company focuses on advanced solar energy integration. The company builds and installs power generation, communications, and monitoring equipment in some of the most remote places imaginable.

Mr. Jackson has written to me a few times. I would like to quote from one of his messages. He writes:

Based on what we hear in our interaction with Canadians, our perspective is that most Canadians want the opportunity to generate their own clean energy...and they want to help the environment if they can....

Why doesn't the Government of Canada take advantage of this tremendous talent that sits in waiting to supply a market demand [that] is so clear and present? Why doesn't the Government of Canada appreciate that Canadians see climate change as a serious threat and that they are willing to put their money where their mouth is?

He underlines this:

Homeowners...[who are] ready to invest in renewable energy are immediately demotivated by the fact that unlike other regions of the world, Canada has no public strategy and provides no financial incentives directly to home and business owners that want to participate in the clean energy economy.

Another constituent of mine, Eduardo Uranga, has written to me many times. He is a renewable energy advocate and a proponent of solar energy. He has submitted a passive solar water heating project application to Natural Resources Canada. His project proposes to train solar hot water heater installers to install solar water heaters, to create an installation standard through video and quality-controlled inspections, and to create a viable green employment opportunity in the Comox Valley. Mr. Uranga's project is an example of clean energy innovation by creating sustainable economic growth and supporting the transition toward a low-carbon economy.

Another Vancouver Island resident in my riding, Dave Melrose, from Qualicum Beach, who works for Osprey Electric, met with me this year to discuss solar installation rebates and tax installations for solar technology. I will quote from its website:

Solar panels, wind turbines and micro-hydro...alternative energy being used more extensively every year. That’s because material costs are declining and hydro costs are rising, allowing companies and individuals to consider new and exciting alternative energy solutions.

This statement is true across the country. Everywhere we turn, Canadians want to invest in clean energy solutions so they can own their own power and help the environment at the same time. More and more Canadians are moving in this direction, because the cost of doing so is no longer as prohibitive.

A month ago, I was at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and had a chance to hear from experts in the renewable energy field.

One of them, Patrick Bateman, a director with the Canadian Solar Industry Association, said this:

When supply-mix planners, policy-makers, or regulators are considering what the future supply mix will look like, cost is obviously one of the primary considerations. The cost of solar electricity will have dropped by about 90% between 2010 and 2020. Wind is following a similar trajectory. With these new technologies, the costs are coming down so quickly that when investments with a lifespan of 30 or 40 years are being made, it's of critical importance that people are doing so with the current and best information. I think those cost trends are an example of data that's missing from an independent Canadian impartial basis, which we have to go elsewhere and Canadianize. If that cost information were available in Canada, that would be one example of something that would be of great benefit to the market.

I asked Mr. Bateman about comparisons to other countries. He offered this information:

In the United States, they've had an investment tax credit that covers 30% of capital costs for both wind and solar. For wind, there's also a production tax credit. I'm less familiar with the subsidies for hydro or for marine, but the...[investment tax credit] has been the single largest subsidy for renewables in the United States in comparison to Canada. We have not had anything comparable to date.

He cited well over a dozen states that are moving forward very quickly on this.

According to Clean Energy Canada's latest annual assessment, Canada spent 15% less on new clean energy development in 2015 than in 2014. We are going the wrong way. Future growth in this sector will depend largely on policies being developed, both federally and provincially, and on ending fossil fuel subsidies so that renewable alternatives are on a level playing field with oil and gas giants.

I asked the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in the House a year ago whether the government would end oil and gas subsidies, and she said that it was something the government was working toward. Instead, the Liberals turn around and make a commitment to spend $4.5 billion on a 65-year-old leaky pipeline that would create only 3,000 short-term jobs.

New Democrats would like to offer alternatives. We are talking today about our proposal to redirect fossil fuel subsidies to long-term clean energy jobs, which would be available to workers today as well as to the next generation.

Back on Vancouver Island, there are many examples of first nations communities embracing the potential of alternative power, whether it be the Huu-ay-aht or the Hesquiaht, which is a remote nation that is using diesel. It is still waiting for the government to approve its application. If it does not, the Hesquiaht will potentially lose millions of dollars. It desperately needs the government to approve its application.

I will cite some that are having success, like the T’Sou-ke First Nation, which is emerging as a leader in modern clean energy. It is a great example of traditional sustainable living, which its residents have embraced for generations. T'Sou-ke was the first aboriginal community in the world to be designated a solar community. Solar programs for Colwood, the capital regional district, and several first nations around B.C. are modelled on what T'Sou-ke has done.

Then there is the story of the Tla-o-qui-aht people in my home community, which is their traditional territory. The Tla-o-qui-aht people have a long history of innovation and trade. They are working on ensuring that they have strong energy security. They have a run-of-river project called Canoe Creek, which became operational in 2010. It is environmentally friendly, because it does not require them to dam the river. Run-of-river hydroelectricity is generated when water taken from a natural stream hits a turbine and activates a generator. That water is then returned back into the stream. Canoe Creek is a 6-megawatt hydro power facility that can provide electricity to 2,000 homes.

In an interview with the National Observer, Saya Masso, a good friend of mine and the Tla-o-qui-aht Nation's natural resources manager, said, “Nobody was going to give us money for the project, so we had to use that high value property to get this off the ground.”

Here is another really interesting part of this story. In order to build the project, the Tla-o-qui-aht used pipes from failed or outdated pipeline projects. They have said that if Kinder Morgan fails to be completed, the leftover pipes could be used for clean energy projects. The Tla-o-qui-aht people have a couple more hydro projects in their territory at different stages of development.

These are inspiring stories of Canadians who are bringing solutions to the table. I thank them for their dedication, their work, and their passion for the health of our environment and our economy.

We need a government that listens to Canada's indigenous people, scientists, and local communities. They have outlined many reasons why the Kinder Morgan pipeline is not worth the risk and the investment: it will increase greenhouse gas emissions; it threatens our waterways, coastlines, and wildlife; and it threatens the marine and tourism industries and jobs. There are over 100,000 jobs in tourism in British Columbia.

As a member of the G20, Canada officially recognized that inefficient subsidies for fossil fuels undermine efforts to deal with climate change, encourage wasteful energy consumption, reduce energy security, and impede investment in clean energy sources.

Nearly half of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions come from two sectors: oil and gas, and transportation. However, the Liberal government has become a huge investor in the oil and gas industry, instead of eliminating fossil fuel subsidies as it promised.

Global climate leaders do not spend billions of dollars of public funding on pipelines. With this one move, the Liberal government has failed as a climate change leader and shows no real vision for the future of Canada's energy economy.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a member of a party that apparently champions the needs, interests, and concerns of the working class. I wonder what he would say to Alberta oil workers who are going to rely upon and are looking forward to the twinning of the pipeline.

The second point is, does he support oil travelling by rail?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the reason we tabled this motion today, to talk about jobs for middle-class Canadians, especially Albertans. I just outlined a number of projects happening in my riding alone that we could be doing in Alberta. When we look at Alberta, we could be investing in many different opportunities for clean energy, whether it be run-of-river hydroelectric power, wind power, or geothermal.

I cannot even imagine how much $4.5 billion could do in advancing Canada in terms of clean energy. We need only look to countries like Norway, which has done that. The Norwegians have been smart. They did not squander their profits from the oil and gas industry as we have here in Canada. In fact, they have $1 trillion in their prosperity fund, and they are earning $50 billion a year in interest alone from that prosperity fund. They are investing that money in clean energy and diversifying their economy so that they have jobs for middle-class people in their country, not just for today but also for tomorrow.

The motion today is exactly about that. It is about making sure that we have jobs for people today and for tomorrow. That is what young people in our country are asking us to do.

Building a pipeline with the amount of money that the Liberals are asking taxpayers to commit, and potentially even using pension funds to buy into it, does not make sense. When I talk to people in my riding or across the country, they agree that, if we are going to use taxpayers' money, they would rather see $15 billion invested in jobs for today and for the long term, to diversify our economy and create more energy security for Canada, and do we ever need that. We need that now more than ever before, when we look at our relations around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the debate around jobs needs to bear in mind that the number one goal of the labour unions of northern Alberta, the Alberta Federation of Labour and Unifor, is to protect jobs. However, it should be noted that these organizations are against the Kinder Morgan expansion. We know they are against it because they recognize that, just like shipping raw logs off Vancouver Island while our sawmills need resources to process them at home, shipping raw bitumen out of Canada instead of having upgraders and refineries is shipping out the jobs.

I know there are some unions that want the jobs in construction, but those are short-term jobs. The long-term jobs are in following Peter Lougheed's original plan and having upgraders and refineries.

It is a mind-boggling reality that the jobs argument is so badly misunderstood in this country, because propaganda seems to get away with the aura of fact, and those of us who bring fact-based critique to it are somehow clinging to a sort of nirvana world. We would rather see Canada solve this problem by thinking like a country.

I wonder if my hon. colleague from Courtenay—Alberni wants to add anything to this issue of shipping out raw resources.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a Vancouver Islander, the member knows all too well that we have seen raw logs go up tenfold in 10 years, in the name of jobs, while we have seen mills close.

I live in a community that is deeply affected by this, a community with the highest unemployment rate in southwestern B.C., because we have chosen to ship raw logs out of our community in the name of jobs. Well, those jobs have not happened. In fact, it has been the biggest job-killing practice I have ever seen. We are also building ferries, because the government decided to remove a tariff to build ferries outside of our country, in the name of jobs, so that it would be cheaper for ferry users. That generated $118 million, which could be used in building port infrastructure, doing maintenance, and shipbuilding here in Canada.

We keep hearing that we need a pipeline, in the name of jobs, to ship raw bitumen to another country so that it can be refined there.

It is exactly this spin that is killing jobs in our country, and it is misleading people. What we need is to invest in clean energy, jobs for today and jobs for tomorrow, and stop shipping our raw resources. This rip-and-ship mentality has to end. This is an opportunity right now for the leadership and the courage that young people and people across our nation so desperately need and demand.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for his passion on the subject.

I am proud to rise today to speak to a motion that not only works to protect Canada's environment, but calls on the government to invest in green energy and green jobs. I have heard from many constituents in my riding, Kootenay—Columbia, on this issue. I will say up front that some of these constituents would like to see the pipeline built. They hope to see some jobs come out of this project.

Before we celebrate that, in my opinion that is not so much an indication of support for the pipeline as it is desperation to find good jobs in the construction sector. It is actually a condemnation of the lack of good jobs created by the federal government, but that is a debate for another day.

The Kinder Morgan pipeline, or pipe dream, as some are calling it, will not create the jobs they are hoping for. In fact, it is estimated that between 2,500 and 3,000 jobs will be created in the short-term construction phase. Maintaining the pipeline will employ fewer than 100 workers. That is not enough to make this project valuable to British Columbia workers, compared to the potential job loss from even one coastal oil spill. There are better ways to create jobs.

Last summer, my B.C. colleagues and I hired an economist to study the green energy economy in our province. We have not released the full report yet, but I would like to read some sections of it: “In developing an energy strategy, the first strategic focus should be on efficient buildings via green building codes and retrofit strategies. Efficient building are a low-cost option with high employment potential. Next, the focus should be on increasing the portion of renewable sources in electricity, heat, and transportation. There are feasible energy technologies across B.C. [such as] solar in the Kootenays”.

We have two examples already operating in the Kootenays. One is the 1.05-megawatt Kimberley solar mine, and the other is Nelson's solar garden. That is a great story. The Nelson power company sold the opportunity to residents to buy their own solar panels, and after purchasing the panels they got to reduce their electricity bills over time by the amount of their investment. It is a great story for everyone in the end.

According to the report, there is also lots of opportunity for run-of-river hydro power across the province, geothermal in the Lower Mainland and the interior, biomass energy production in Cariboo and Thompson-Okanagan, and wind on Vancouver Island and the north coast. The report also says that an energy strategy “should include provisions for multiple sources of energy tailored to the geography and strengths of each region.”

Let us imagine that, instead of throwing $4.5 billion at a leaky 65-year-old pipeline to support the carbon industry, and potentially $7 billion to $12 billion more at building a new pipeline, we invested that money in renewable technologies for the future. Canada could be a world leader in the green economy, rather than another follower of the time-tenured fossil fuel industry.

This is an important part of the motion we are debating today. Part (b) of the motion says, “putting workers and skills training at the heart of the transition to a clean energy economy so workers don’t have to choose between a good job and a healthy environment for themselves and their families”. Also, with local energy production, people do not have to leave home in order to make a living.

We call that a just transition. It would provide a fair plan for workers in the traditional energy sector to adapt to a new economy. There are many transferable skills between oil and gas and renewable energy occupations, as well as higher job creation potential in renewable energy streams.

It is important, no, essential, that Canada make the transition to a green economy as quickly as possible. Besides the fact that we are woefully behind in our international obligations to do our part to combat climate change, the environmental risks of completing this pipeline are tremendous. My colleagues who represent the coastal areas of B.C. have spoken very eloquently, on many occasions, about the risks to our fragile marine environment. We hear less about the problems the pipeline could present for B.C.'s interior.

The route of the Kinder Morgan pipeline passes through a national park and a B.C. provincial park. A bitumen leak in either of those places could be devastating for local wildlife, lakes and rivers, and for the people who enjoy those places we have committed to protecting.

However, we do not even need a leak to see harm to these natural areas. When construction equipment and crews move from one site to another, they commonly carry with them seeds and spores from previous sites. They can also carry harmful insects that have stowed away in heavy earth movers or other equipment. This cross-contamination from one site to another creates a very real opportunity to introduce invasive species into our parks. I am not aware of any program or system the government and its contractors plan to implement to prevent the transfer of invasive species from one site to another.

Let us return to the issue of bitumen leaks for a minute. The government and the corporations repeat the same refrain that these pipelines are built to accepted standards, and leaks cannot possibly happen. That is nonsense. Pipeline leaks can and do happen, and it is guaranteed that they will happen again.

Look at Kinder Morgan's record, for example. According to the website, The Sacred Trust, “Since the 1960s, the longest period of time the Trans Mountain Pipeline has gone without a spill is approximately four years.” On July 15, 2005, 210,000 litres of crude oil leaked. On June 4, 2007, 69,500 litres leaked. On July 24, 2007, 250,000 litres of crude oil leaked, contaminating a large portion of Burrard Inlet. On May 6, 2009, 200,000 litres leaked from Kinder Morgan's storage facility in Burnaby, B.C. On January 24, 2012, 110,000 litres of crude oil leaked in Abbotsford. On May 27, a mere two days before the government announced its poorly thought-out decision to buy the pipeline, a pumping station north of Kamloops leaked an estimated 4,800 litres of medium crude oil.

The pipeline is about as leakproof as the Titanic was unsinkable.

If the government and the company want to convince Canadians that these pipelines are safe, they should begin by improving the standards to which they are built. There should be an obligation on pipeline companies to fully pay for the cleanup of any spills, and the CEO any pipeline company should face criminal charges should leaks occur. Do that, and we will see one of two things happen. Either pipelines that do not leak will actually be built, or companies will decide that maybe the risk is greater than the reward, and they will stop doing what they are doing, including governments.

While the idea of corporate criminal liability may be new here, it has been the case in Europe for decades. Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Italy, and many others hold corporations as legal entities that may be criminally charged, and in many jurisdictions the corporate officers may be held liable.

Let me finish by quoting correspondence from my constituents in Kootenay—Columbia about the pipeline project.

Vikki in Revelstoke wrote:

Your government says this Texas oil company’s pipeline is in the national interest. We believe that having a safe climate is in our national interest, and the two are not compatible.

Do not throw our precious public money into the coffers of an oil giant, subsidizing the profits of a 19th century industry. Instead, act in the true national interest and invest in the future: a 21st century energy system, public services and clean infrastructure for all.

Stuart in Nelson wrote:

The reluctance of private enterprise to invest in this project is a clear signal that conditions have changed to make it an unwise investment. Yet you and your government continue to prop up the dying fossil fuel industry, this time with Canadian taxpayer taking the risks. This is completely unacceptable.

Lorna from Kaslo wrote:

Canada has unmet climate commitments. The fossil fuel industry is clearly changing global climate.

My hope is that Canada join other visionary countries by re-directing our investments toward renewable energy and toward reducing our energy consumption.

I agree with Vikki, Stuart, Lorna, and the many others from my riding of Kootenay—Columbia who have written to oppose the government's purchase of the pipeline, which Kinder Morgan was happy to get rid of. Canadians want jobs, but they want green jobs. They do not want to see their money wasted on another government buyout.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion with which my colleagues opposite stated their positions. One of the things I have noticed in the debate over the past few days is how narrowly focused those comparisons are, that we are not looking at the broader picture, both in clean energy and the work that has been done in clean energy.

There is something called the NICE initiative, the nuclear innovation clean energy future initiative. Canada, the U.S. and Japan just signed onto it a few weeks ago. It looks at small modular reactors and their opportunity to provide a source of energy for rural or remote communities, and resource extraction, among other things.

I listened to the pipeline conversation, and I have a question. It sounds to me, as I continually hear this, that the third party opposite does not support any pipeline or resource development. How, as a natural resource-rich country, do we participate in the global market with those natural resources without getting them off the shores of Canada?

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a real opportunity to be a world leader in green energy, rather than just following along, behind other countries like Norway and Germany where green energy is now very much a part of their everyday lives and their energy systems and their communities. In fact, when we fly over Germany, as I did a while ago, we see wind turbines everywhere, providing local power to local communities.

The choice is really whether we want to stay in the past or whether we want to move into a more positive future. Shipping our raw resources out of Canada keeps us where we have been for many years.

I look at that $4.5 billion, as do my constituents, and I think of the many different ways that $4.5 billion could have been put to much better use for a better future in green energy. Even if people are not into energy, we can look at universal pharmacare and universal day care. There are so many different ways to use that $4.5 billion other than to buy an old pipeline.