Debates of June 14th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Carbon Pricing

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what has changed is that the proposal of the previous Conservative government did not raise a single penny of revenue for government. That is the difference between an environmental regulation and a tax. Taxes raise money for government. The real motive of the present plan is to raise money for politicians to spend.

This is another thing that has changed. The Liberal government loves to spend other people's money. Since the Liberals took office, they have increased government spending at three times the combined rate of inflation and population growth. Their deficit this year is three times what they promised. Where they have said they would balance the budget in 2019, they now say that will not happen until 2045, a quarter of a century from now.

Those are a bunch of changes.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is having a real effect in my community, and I am extremely concerned. My next door neighbour in Oshawa is a GM retiree, as is my neighbour across the street. The uncertainty of this carbon tax, the fact that the government cannot even let Canadians, job creators, and manufacturers know how much it will cost is really making a chill on the market.

Just recently, we heard Mr. Trump follow through on his threat for tariffs on American steel. We use American steel in Oshawa to press parts to build cars. If we put that up 25%, it is just more uncertainty and less competitiveness in Oshawa for us to do what we do best.

Could my colleague comment on why it is so necessary for the government give the cost us of this carbon tax? Even better, it could follow the leadership of the premier designate in Ontario, who said that he would get rid of this carbon tax. At least it could give manufacturers and people with jobs in my community a fighting chance against the American tariffs on Canadian companies and steel companies.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very good point. The government brings in this tax and drives business out of the country. Then those businesses will move to places where there are no environmental standards or protections and will release even more greenhouse gases in those countries, creating jobs for our competitors.

Climate change is a global issue. It is not enough just to drive business out of Canada, which seems to be the government's plan. If that business establishes itself south of the border, or elsewhere in the world, to continue its productions there because it cannot afford to pay the taxes here, it will still emit greenhouse gases.

We have to tackle the issue of climate change. Having more of our jobs move outside of this country to places with no environmental standards or less environmental standards than we have is no way to tackle climate change.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Carleton's last comments are so reminiscent of the 2011 position of the Conservative Party regarding pipelines. Members of this place may have forgotten, but in 2011, under former prime minister Stephen Harper, the Conservative Party opposed pipelines to British Columbia on the grounds that it would be wrong to export bitumen to countries with refineries that operated under environmental standards not as good as Canada's. That was in 2011, and things have changed and memories are short.

I will defend the government very little on its climate plan. It does not have a plan and had very few promises in the Liberal platform, but one of them was carbon pricing. Therefore, clearly it has public support to bring in carbon pricing. The NDP, the Greens, and the Liberals ran on policies for carbon pricing of different sorts, and that was by far the majority of voters. The Liberals won the majority of seats without the majority of voters. However, on this, the majority of voters are with them to bring in carbon pricing.

Ontario has gone from Kathleen Wynne to Doug Ford, who has said he will pull out of cap and trade. How do we estimate a national price when we do not know what Ontario will do?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. leader of the Green Party for voting in favour of my private member's bill last week, which would have allowed workers with disabilities to keep more of the wages they would lose to clawbacks and taxes. I know I am not her favourite member of Parliament, so it must not have been easy for her to do that. However, she did it on principle and I thank her for that.

I have to be honest. I agree with Doug Ford that Kathleen Wynne's cap and trade system was an absolute disaster. Of all of the ways to address climate change, this was probably the worst one. It will end up sending billions of dollars to California and other jurisdictions in trading of carbon credits. It will ultimately create a new class of investment bankers and insiders who will make a fortune. The revenues raised by the government itself will disproportionately go to the wealthy and well connected in the form of handouts to businesses and rebates for those who can afford a $150,000-electric Mercedes. It is another massive wealth transfer from the working class to the super rich.

Therefore, I agree with him that we should scrap it. We should work on environmental policies that actually protect our ecology without devastating our economy.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion moved by the hon. member for Carleton. This gives me the opportunity to talk about what our government is doing to support the economy and protect the environment.

Maintaining a strong economy and fighting climate change are important priorities to us and to Canadians. We share their concerns. With the possible exception of the hon. member for Carleton, Canadians know that there is a cost to pollution. Canadians also know that droughts, floods, and weather have an adverse effect not only on health, but also on the vitality of our economy. A healthy, sustainable economy favours growth and job creation to the benefit of the middle class.

Unlike the previous government, our government does not intend to stand idly by. We have made major investments in order to protect the quality of Canada's air, water, and natural areas. We want to ensure that future generations can still walk in the woods and swim in our magnificent lakes and rivers.

Therefore, to date, our government has allocated $5.7 billion over 12 years in support of the implementation of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. This plan was developed with the provinces and territories and in consultation with indigenous peoples. It will ensure a healthy environment for future generations and support a strong, clean economy. It will also foster innovation and create good, well-paying jobs for the middle class.

Let me remind the House of some of its measures. As a first step in the framework, budget 2016 provided nearly $3 billion over five years to address the effects of climate change and reduce air pollution. In the 2017 budget, the government allocated additional significant investments in green infrastructure and public transit. On top of that, nearly $1.5 billion in new financing was made available to help Canada's clean technology firms grow and expand.

More recently, budget 2018 proposed one of the most significant investments in nature conservation in Canadian history, to protect our ecosystems and biodiversity. In partnership with the provinces, territories, and indigenous peoples, this plan will help preserve 17% of Canada's interior and inland waters. The pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change supports Canada's vision to reduce greenhouse gases by 30% over 2005 levels by 2030, while allowing us to adapt to and build resilience for climate change, which is very real, as we know; its effects are being felt across the country.

To achieve this goal, the key element of our action plan is to put a tax on carbon pollution across the country, because this is effective. It will help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to do so at a low cost to businesses and consumers. By focusing on development and new choices to enable Canadians to reduce their carbon footprint, we can stimulate innovation. At the end of the day, we will all benefit from increased economic growth and cleaner growth.

The pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change was developed in collaboration with the provincial and territorial governments, and most provinces support it. A clean environment and a clean economy go hand in hand. That is what we have said and we believe it. Our efforts to tackle climate change are part of our plan to grow the economy and strengthen the middle class. The 2018 budget tabled earlier this year by the Minister of Finance, whom I am fortunate to work with, is doing even more to help Canadians. The new Canada workers benefit will let low-income workers keep more money in their pockets. This will encourage more people to join the labour force and will provide concrete assistance to more than two million Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class.

The Canada child benefit will also be enhanced. Benefits will be increased annually to keep pace with the cost of living starting in July of this year, which is two years earlier than planned.

We are able to do it this year because of Canada's sustained economic growth. By providing more money to families who need it most, this benefit provides a new opportunity for Canadian families. We should also not forget our efforts on behalf of small businesses, who, as we know, create most of the jobs in Canada. We reduced the small business tax to 10% effective January 1 and will be reducing it to 9% next January 1. This represents savings of up to $7,500 a year to help Canadian entrepreneurs and innovators.

The negative impacts of climate change are a challenge that governments must grapple with. We do so with the confidence that a strong economy and a clean environment go hand in hand. Canadians expect all governments to take serious action to grow the economy, protect the environment, and address climate change. We are taking action.

Putting a price on carbon pollution is central to Canada's plan to fight climate change and grow the economy. Carbon pricing is broadly recognized as one of the most effective, transparent, and efficient policy approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In December 2016, our government, along with most provinces and territories, worked with indigenous partners and adopted the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. The framework includes a pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution, with the aim of having carbon pricing in place in all provinces and territories. The framework provides provinces and territories with the flexibility to implement their own carbon pollution pricing systems. They can choose between an explicit price-based system or a cap and trade system.

The member for Carleton keeps talking about price hikes. Let me reassure him that the direct cost of the actions in the pan-Canadian framework, including carbon pricing, is projected to be modest, particularly in comparison to the projected benefits. All direct revenues related to carbon pricing will be returned to the jurisdiction of origin. Of course, the precise cost will depend on the design of each provincial or territorial carbon pricing system.

To ensure that a fair price on carbon pollution is in place across Canada, our government has committed to implementing a federal backstop carbon-pollution pricing system. The backstop system would apply in provinces and territories that request it and in jurisdictions that do not have a pricing system in place that meets the federal standard by the end of this year. In such cases, the cost of carbon pollution in the federal backstop system will be set at $20 per tonne of emissions as of January 1, 2019, and the federal system will return direct revenues from the carbon price to the jurisdiction of origin.

That said, we cannot measure the cost of carbon pricing without also measuring its benefits. Those benefits are important, such as reducing air and water pollution and their harmful effects on human health and on the environment.

At the risk of repeating myself, a strong economy and a clean environment go hand in hand. That is why this year's budget proposed further measures to help grow a healthy and sustainable clean economy. For example, budget 2018 includes one of the most significant investments in nature conservation in Canadian history, more than $1.3 billion over five years. This will ensure that future generations can continue to hike in our forests and swim in our lakes and rivers. This will also allow us to enhance the protection of Canada's ecosystems, landscapes, and biodiversity, including species at risk.

Our government is also investing about $1 billion over five years to establish better rules for the review of major projects, an effort that, all at once, aims to protect our environment, rebuild public trust, and help create new jobs and economic opportunities. This builds on the other significant investments made since we took office. For example, budget 2017 included historic investments in green infrastructure and public transit as well as increased support for the Canadian clean-tech sector. Budget 2017 provided up-and-coming companies with increased funding in the form of business equity, working capital, and project funds.

The low carbon economy leadership fund, launched in 2017, is investing $1.4 billion in projects that will generate clean growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions while creating jobs for Canadians for years to come. In Ontario, where the member for Carleton is from, almost $420 million will be invested to support Ontario's climate change action plan and help Ontarians contribute to fighting climate change.

In Alberta, where the member grew up, and I am sure where he has many friends, almost $150 million will be used to support provincial climate objectives. Alberta's projects will focus on helping Albertans, including farmers and ranchers, use less energy and save money. The province will also invest in restoring forests affected by wildfires.

In Quebec, over $260 million will help expand action under the province's 2013-2020 climate change action plan.

The list goes on, with projects in British Columbia, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. It is important to note that only provinces and territories that sign on to the pan-Canadian framework for clean growth and climate change are eligible for funding under the low carbon economy leadership fund.

I just spent a bit of time highlighting the measures announced in 2017 and 2018, but this really started in 2016. That year, our government launched a $1.5 billion national oceans protection plan to improve marine safety and responsible shipping, protect Canada's marine environment, and unlock new opportunities for indigenous and coastal communities.

So far, to combat climate change, our government has already allocated $5.7 billion over 12 years in support of the implementation of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. After years of inaction under the previous government, I think members would agree that this has been welcome news for Canadians.

Pricing carbon pollution is the cornerstone of our efforts to combat climate change. We must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and send a clear signal to entrepreneurs, industry, and investors that we are moving to a low-carbon future.

Carbon pricing offers many economic benefits, such as lower health care costs, less spending to fight climate change, and more innovation, including energy efficiency improvements.

Such improvements can be very beneficial. For example, in 2013 alone, energy efficiency savings averaged out to $869 per Canadian household.

In conclusion, a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. The global economy is moving toward cleaner growth. Canada cannot stand on the sidelines.

Our government is determined to ensure that Canadians will benefit from the opportunities created by a sustainable economy and all it offers, including a healthier environment for future generations.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, understands the implications of putting in policies in this country and not mimicking the same policies as our competitors. The challenge we are having right now is that the same people who made Ontario less competitive are now in the PMO, and they are driving this carbon-tax mentality that is going to affect people in my community, not in the future, but very soon, today.

I know that the Prime Minister said he wanted to transition away from manufacturing. He thinks it is bad. He thinks it is dirty. However, there are things we can do to help our manufacturers, particularly in places like Oshawa, with the auto sector, which is facing a real competitive disadvantage right now because of government policy. There are things the government can do to help. We have learned that the Americans are putting in steel tariffs. We build cars with steel. It is a certain type of steel. Unless the Liberals exempt steel coming from the States, there is going to be a 25% increase in costs.

I know that he knows it. Maybe we will find out today. Could the Prime Minister please let Canadians and job creators know how much this carbon tax is going to cost? The decisions the Liberals are making today will affect jobs in the future in communities like mine in Oshawa.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague opposite for his question. I enjoy working with him.

With regard to competitiveness and the impact a price on carbon pollution may have, I would like to remind him, even though I know he already knows, that 80% of Canadians live in a province that already has a price on carbon. Those include the most densely populated provinces, namely, Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia. Their growth is higher than average and they have maintained that growth over the past few years.

Pricing carbon has had no impact on competitiveness. On the contrary, we believe it encourages innovation, and that is supported by empirical evidence. Pricing carbon can have a very positive impact as businesses, industries, and consumers adapt and innovate to reduce their energy consumption and use energy more efficiently. That is not something we can ignore. We cannot only cherry-pick the facts that are most convenient. British Columbia put a price on carbon pollution several years ago and it has been experiencing strong economic growth.

With regard to the steel and aluminum tariffs, I think that we all agree that we need to take a stand against these unacceptable and, in our opinion, illegal tariffs imposed by the American administration. Canada must stand firm in defending its interests and always be calm and reasonable in its dealings with the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that putting a price on carbon will have a positive impact on the fight against climate change. I have no doubt about that. However, for as long as oil companies continue to receive fossil fuel subsidies, it will not be enough to meet the terms of the Paris Agreement we signed onto.

I know the government said it intends to phase those subsidies out, but it seems to think it has all the time in the world.

When is the government finally going to end these subsidies?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and the NDP as a whole for supporting carbon pollution pricing. The vast majority of MPs and Canadians agree that it makes sense and has been shown to be effective in the fight against climate change.

With regard to the fossil fuel subsidies or tax credits, our government is committed to ending them by 2025. Our first budget already included a phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for certain liquefied natural gas facilities. In 2017, we announced the elimination of certain tax credits for oil and gas exploration expenses. All these measures support our objective of phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, as promised.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as he will note, on the Standing Committee on Finance, members of the opposition moved eight amendments to the BIA specifically on the carbon tax. Every single one was voted down. We were trying to get more transparency in the report to Parliament that would be tabled once a year. We wanted to know the total GHG emissions reductions from the carbon tax. Eight times members of the Liberal caucus voted them down. The member was there, so he would know that this was the case. He talks about transparency and openness, but without that information, Parliament does not have the full picture of what is going on or the impact on middle-class Canadian families.

Why were the members instructed to vote that way? Why can we not have that information? Why do we find ourselves today debating this issue, still not having the full information on the impact on middle-class families, and this carbon tax cover-up?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they did not seem concerned with greenhouse gases for 10 years, but now they are requesting all of the information on reducing emissions, so I am pleased to see that, maybe for the first time ever, Conservative members are worried about greenhouse gas emissions.

If you look at the jurisdictions that do put a price on carbon pollution, you can see that this price does have an impact, that it helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Let us wait and see what the provinces will put forward. We will have all of the information once each province develops its plan.

I am pleased to hear that he cares about reducing greenhouse gases. That desire was sorely lacking for the 10 years during which his party stood still as the world was moving towards a cleaner economy. When you stand still and the rest of the world is moving forward, you end up going backwards.

Canadians had had enough of a government that did nothing about climate change and that did nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, after making promises in 2008 in its infamous turning the corner plan, on which it never followed through.

As for the financial impact of putting a price on carbon pollution, it is important to remember that revenue will remain in the jurisdiction in which it was collected. It will be revenue neutral. The provinces will be able to decide what to do with the revenue generated by a price on carbon pollution.

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

Mr. Speaker, we all know that climate change disproportionately impacts the poorest and most vulnerable, who are often women and children. We know that the weather is getting wetter, warmer, and wilder.

Not only are we trying to reduce pollution, which has an impact on climate change, but we also, as the member mentioned, introduced the Canada child benefit, and indexed it two years earlier; cut taxes on middle-class families; and introduced various measures to support women through budget 2018.

The member for Lethbridge earlier today said that poverty is sexist and that the Prime Minister and our government are perpetuating it. I wonder if the member could correct the record on that and tell this House not only how much our government is doing to reduce the impact of pollution on climate change but what it is doing for Canadian families, especially the most vulnerable.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that climate change often impacts the most vulnerable among us. By moving away from the boutique tax credits that the Conservatives brought forth as their way of trying to help, which always focused more on the few than the many, the measures we have taken represent a different approach. We want to give more to those who need it the most, such as through the Canada child benefit that the member mentioned.

Just two days ago, when I met with the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters, I was told how big an impact this has had on the people it serves. We have stopped sending the Canada child benefit to the families of millionaires, in order to focus on those who need it the most. We know that the vast majority of those who receive the maximum amount more often than not are single mothers.

This has had a terrific impact, just like the investments we are making into the Canada workers benefit, which will help low-income workers. We are also moving away from the boutique tax credits and the approach the previous government took, where, inevitably, at every corner, it would focus on the wealthiest among us. We think prosperity should be inclusive, and that is the approach we have taken.

When it comes to climate change, the massive investments we are making in public transit, for instance, contribute to quality of life for all Canadians. I can speak for my region, where Quebec City has announced a tramway project so ambitious that it will have an impact on the time it takes for people to get to work, and on the environment with respect to the number of days there is smog in Quebec City. That plan was ambitious because of the federal investments.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to an important topic in the context of the Conservatives' opposition motion.

I am a bit surprised to have to rise yet again to speak to a question that is very similar to others that have been raised by my Conservative colleagues. Here they are again on the issue of carbon pricing and its cost. It is the famous question that they keep asking over and over again in the House of Commons. It seems that they will never be satisfied with the answers from the government and the interventions by our colleagues in the House.

Today I will address the issue in a broader context and talk about climate change leadership. It is leadership that was completely lacking from the Conservative side. They were content to bury their heads in the sand. As for the Liberals, they are being completely inconsistent when it comes to fighting climate change, especially in light of their recent decisions. I will come back to that later in my speech.

Let me begin by saying that I am disappointed that the Conservatives are so obsessed with this issue that they do not see all the other important issues that we could be discussing in the House. They are obsessed with this topic. They are fixated on a document from October 20, 2015, the day after the election of that same year. The document, to which they keep referring, is some sort of memo or email from the Department of Finance in which the figures are redacted. If the Conservatives seriously want to obtain this document then I do not understand why they have not managed to get their hands on it. That document was dated the day after the election and was highly likely prepared during the 2015 election campaign, when the Conservatives were technically still in power. The Conservatives have developed a baffling fixation with this document.

I am fortunate to sit on the Standing Committee on Finance, where we heard public servants being quizzed about this. They said that the document was prepared during the campaign along with many documents put together in the event that a new government was elected. They worked on several scenarios based on the election platforms of the different parties. It seems that it was common practice in the public service, during and a little after the campaign, to start doing the groundwork for potential changes in government policies and in advance of the swearing in of the prime minister and cabinet. That is what the Conservatives continue to refer to. They are fixated on this document, which is a little surprising given that it was prepared under their watch.

It is also a little surprising to see them so opposed to the polluter pays principle whereby those who pollute have to pay for the cost of that pollution to our environment and our society. In several other areas, paying for one's pollution is standard practice. Our municipal taxes, for instance, pay for our garbage to be taken to the dump. The same principle applies to recycling, because there is a cost associated with taking recyclable materials to a recycling centre. The polluter pays principle applies in most sectors. We pay for the pollution we create.

Until just recently, however, this principle has never applied to greenhouse gas pollution. That is what this government is trying to do, as are the provincial governments and many governments around the world that have already taken action in that regard. It is the right thing to do. As in other areas, whoever is responsible for polluting should have to pay for the cost it imposes on our society. The Conservatives do not seem to understand, nor are they willing to try to understand, that this principle should also apply to polluting our atmosphere.

If this principle is good enough for the garbage we bury in landfills, why should it not also apply to the pollution we put in the air, which goes out into the atmosphere and surely has a significant impact? I do not think we still need to make a case for the existence of and the science behind climate change. Only a few Conservatives still deny the existence of climate change, or more specifically, the fact that human activity affects climate change. Thankfully, their numbers are dwindling.

During the recent campaign in Ontario, we heard Conservative candidates denying that humans had anything to do with climate change. Some of them are in complete denial. Fortunately, a few of them have seen the light with regard to the action that we must take and some others support the polluter pays principle. There are also some Conservative thinkers who have realized that this is the right thing to do. Take for example, Mr. Manning, a well-known Conservative, who has come to realize that a carbon tax is one of the most effective ways to combat climate change. I am also thinking of Canada's Ecofiscal Commission, which did a lot of work on this issue. This commission is made up of a number of thinkers from various backgrounds, including some who are a bit more fiscally conservative. They realized that a carbon tax is the best way to fight climate change.

Based on their studies, they came to the conclusion that, of all the possible tools at their disposal, pricing carbon is the most effective way of meeting our objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Conservatives alone continue to deny the facts and the studies and findings that have been confirmed by countries around the world.

It is really unfortunate that they are still in denial. Fortunately, leaders around the world have begun implementing polluter pays mechanisms and putting a price on carbon. Take for example British Columbia. It put a price on carbon over 10 years ago. Alberta did the same just recently, and so did Quebec and Ontario. They joined California in implementing a carbon exchange, even though Ontario may end up changing its system. Provinces across Canada have been showing leadership on this issue, and they have had some success.

I do not necessarily want to repeat the Liberal government’s words, but we are told that 80% of Canadians are currently subject to a carbon pricing system. We see that these jurisdictions are the most economically successful. This flies in the face of the Conservatives’ message and talking points; they say that carbon pricing will spell the end of the economy, that it will catastrophically blow up the Canadian economy, and that as a result, the economy will go into a tailspin. However, Alberta has the highest economic growth, at over 4%, and has also had carbon pricing for a few years now. The economies of British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario are also doing well.

It is hard to understand why the Conservatives think that there is a cause and effect and that a Canada-wide carbon price will be catastrophic, as well as lead to an economic apocalypse in Canada as soon as it is brought in. This is not supported by any facts, and these are just political talking points for the Conservatives.

This brings me to the importance of the fight against climate change. I am pleased to speak to this issue and say to my constituents that it is extremely important to me. This must be our primary concern here in Ottawa.

In Sherbrooke, hundreds of people constantly write to me on this and other environmental topics. These are very important concerns for us. People are aware of the impact of the climate change that we are seeing across Canada and around the world. They understand that Ottawa must have leaders in the fight against climate change. I am therefore very happy to represent them and to stand up and assure them that this is also very important to me.

It is often said that we must protect the planet for future generations. I still count myself among them to a certain extent, although I am already 27 years old and quite a bit older than when I was first elected. When they say that climate change will affect the youngest, it is because they will have to live with its long-term impacts. I can understand that, and I am certainly worried about my own future on this planet.

We must do everything in our power to slow the impact of climate change, because everyone understands that the process is already under way. We are already seeing the effects, unfortunately, but we have a duty to slow down this process and minimize its impact on future generations and my generation. We want to continue to have a planet where we enjoy living. As my colleague said, we can still swim in our lakes and rivers across Canada, but I fear that this will change in the long term. When I am 80 or 90 years old, if we keep going in the direction we are heading in now, I am not even sure that I will be able to enjoy the same quality of air or water.

That is why I am always happy to share my thoughts on this issue and demand more action from the government. Clearly, doing nothing is not an option, but that still seems to be the Conservatives' preference. They just want to wait, hope, and pray. Some Conservatives pray many times a day, but prayers will not slow the effects of climate change. To do that, we need a real plan.

We must also remember that the cost of inaction is much higher than the cost of action. That is another thing the Conservatives seem to be forgetting here. Yes, there is a cost to taking action, and when the government takes action, it has to get good value for money. An example of that is carbon and pollution pricing, as I was saying off the top. The cost of inaction is much higher, though. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which the Conservatives shut down in 2011, pegged the cost of inaction at $5 billion per year by 2020 and up to $43 billion per year by 2050. Those costs are much higher than the cost of carbon pricing. The Conservatives seem to have lost sight of that in this discussion.

At the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for Carleton asked the same questions every time, just like he asks the same questions every day in question period. When people talk to him about the cost of inaction, he does not seem to get that such a things exists.

It is truly unfortunate that the Conservatives are so blinded by their ideology. They do not understand that these measures are necessary.

I also want to talk about what various provinces have done, particularly Alberta, which is a real role model in this area. There is the principle of revenue neutrality, which is also part of this government's approach. This means no cost to Canadians. Once again, the Conservatives do not seem to understand. Every time we remind them, either in committee or here in the House, that this will be revenue neutral, they do not seem to understand that every dollar raised by carbon pricing is reinvested directly into the economy. The Conservatives cannot seem to grasp this concept.

Alberta is an excellent example of revenue neutrality, and less fortunate low-income families even have a surplus at the end of the year. They receive more money than they pay for carbon pricing. These figures are obviously put forward by the Alberta government. I do not have the exact numbers in front of me today, but costs are estimated at around $400 for each low-income family.

Furthermore, these are the families least affected by the carbon tax because they consume the least. The tax is estimated at $400 per family, but the Government of Alberta gave out direct rebates of about $500. They came out on top at the end of the year. I used the past tense, but I should also use the present. They come out on top at the end of the year. This system is still in place in Alberta. An important part of the discussion should be that the money from the carbon tax is directly invested into the provinces or given directly to citizens through direct transfers.

This brings me to the Liberals' inconsistent approach to the environment, even though today we are talking about the carbon tax and we support this initiative, as we said earlier. All of the major political parties, except one, promised some kind of carbon tax in the last election. I must commend the Liberals on their initiative. However, I condemn their inconsistent approach to combatting climate change.

Everyone, including the people of Sherbrooke, saw what happened recently. We were outraged by the government's decision to invest $4.5 billion of our money in a pipeline transporting oil sands to British Columbia, in spite of obvious opposition in several regions of British Columbia, including indigenous reserves.

The government decided to take money from the people of Sherbrooke, who pay their taxes every year and every day. It decided to take taxpayers' money to invest in a 70-year old pipeline that leaks. Just recently that pipeline leaked 5,000 litres of oil. I want to use the very apt analogy that my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie used yesterday, I believe. He said it is as though the government decided in 1990 to invest in the VHS industry, which was obviously doomed to sputter, if not fail, with the arrival of new technologies.

In this case, the government is deciding, with a glaring lack of long-term vision, to take taxpayers' money and invest it in the energy of yesterday, specifically in a pipeline and even a pipeline expansion. The government is going to inject an additional $12 billion to $15 billion of public money into the expansion of this pipeline in order to transport even more oil.

This is completely inconsistent with the current narrative of the Liberals, who signed the Paris Agreement and say they want to fight climate change. They then turn around and take our money to invest it in a pipeline, an extremely bad deal for Canadians. No private investor was prepared to invest money in this project, and the company that owned the pipeline could not find a buyer.

How can the government claim that this is good for Canadians when the Prime Minister was the only person willing to kick in? This project certainly conveys no vision for our country's future. I just wanted to make sure I condemned that in my speech today. We are talking about climate change and greenhouse gas reduction measures, but we have a government that is inconsistent, to say the least. It says it wants to fight climate change, but then it turns around and spends an eye-watering $4.5 billion on this pipeline. That is an astronomical sum. What could we do with $4.5 billion? The opportunities that could be created with $4.5 billion would be amazing, especially if invested in an energy transition. However, the government has chosen to spend it on a project that is utterly devoid of any vision for the future and is doomed to fail, given that no private investor was willing to risk a penny on it.

I would be happy to take questions from my colleagues to elaborate further on the points I addressed today.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the intervention from my colleague from Sherbrooke, but for a great deal of his speech he talked about the template that Alberta should be using for its climate change plan.

I do not know if my colleague has been to Alberta and has seen the impact that the NDP's policies have had on its economy. There are some issues with the member's argument. He supports the NDP climate change plan but a big portion of that plan was to get the social licence to build pipelines. We have not had a pipeline built despite having a punitive carbon tax on everyday Albertans. He also commented on how much he opposes the pipeline. There are some diametrical issues there.

Alberta has had a carbon tax for decades. It was initially put on the largest emitters. The funds from that carbon tax were not charged to regular Albertans but were charged to the largest emitters who are using those funds to invest in renewable projects like Enbridge's Blackspring wind farm. The carbon footprint of a barrel of oil is down to a third of what it was decades ago because of that carbon tax on the largest emitters. The member said that, now, with the provincial NDP government, those funds from the carbon tax are being reinvested in the economy. Actually, for the last two provincial budgets, the carbon tax was put into general revenue to try to balance the budget.

The member said that the carbon tax should be reinvested in the economy or given back to Albertans, but the provincial NDP government has now said that the carbon tax is being put into general revenue to try to balance its budget. Is that something he would agree with?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention and for pointing out that Alberta instituted carbon pricing long before the NDP formed government. It was actually implemented by a Conservative government.

I want to reiterate that I absolutely agree with the idea of revenue neutrality. This would mean that any carbon pricing revenue collected by the government would have to be fully reinvested, either by giving rebates directly to residents of the province or territory or by injecting it into the economy to make an energy transition. That is what I would hope for from any government that opts for a carbon tax. It needs to be part of a long-term strategy leading to a decision to use this revenue to make an energy transition and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, unlike what we have been seeing over the past decades.

My hope is that, in the future, there will be no need for a carbon tax because we will have moved to a carbon-free economy. Obviously, that is a long-term goal, but I hope that we reinvest so much money from the carbon tax into the energy and the economy of the future, that the carbon tax will become a thing of the past and the revenue it generates will gradually fall as our economy reduces its reliance on fossil fuels as much as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reflect on the province of Alberta, because there is a lot we can learn from it. I believe it was the first government in North America that determined that it was necessary to put a price on pollution. That was a Progressive Conservative government that made that determination. There have been other Conservative leaders, such as Preston Manning and so forth, who have recognized that.

As opposed to reading too much into why the Conservatives are trying to promote what I would classify as untruths on the facts related to what is actually taking place today, let us look at the province of Alberta. In Alberta, the NDP government recognized the value of the environment and the economy working together. On the one hand, we see that there is concern about emissions and a price on pollution, and on the other hand, we see the value of a pipeline. The NDP premier has said that we need to be able to move forward on both.

Would my colleague not agree that Rachel Notley's approach, which is very similar, if not identical, to the approach of this government of having the environment and the economy working hand in hand, allows all Canadians to directly benefit from dealing with the environment and dealing with a price on pollution?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. Sometimes I get the impression that the Liberals do not understand that the NDP believes that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. We are saying the same thing, but the Liberals do not want to acknowledge it.

Just on Tuesday, we debated an opposition motion that clearly set out our vison for the economy of the future, namely, an economy that protects the environment. The two go hand in hand. We cannot have an economy that kills the environment. There would be no more economic activity if the quality of the environment deteriorated to the point where it was difficult to live on this planet. That is why I sometimes have a hard time understanding why the Liberals are accusing us of seeing only one side of the story. The environment is extremely important, but the economy of the future will enable us to protect it. My colleague was right in reminding members that Alberta is a good example of investing in the economy of the future.

However, what I have a hard time understanding is how the Liberal government decided to invest in a pipeline, because that certainly has nothing to do with the economy of the future. If the Liberals want to say that the economy and the environment go hand in hand, they cannot invest in a pipeline in 2018. I do not think that is a good choice for protecting the environment and growing the economy.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep repeating over and over that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. Everyone in the House agrees with that and knows that. What Canadians really want to know is how the Liberals rationalize what is apparent to everyone as a clear contradiction: they cannot triple a pipeline, triple the export of raw bitumen, expand fossil fuel infrastructure, and reduce carbon emissions at the same time. The Liberals say that they can do that. It is like saying that we want to reduce gambling by building more casinos. It just does not make sense to Canadians. It does not make sense as a matter of logic.

If they are going to expand the pipeline and triple the export of raw bitumen and put that much more carbon in the air, they have to reduce emissions elsewhere to not only meet that but to actually go below that if we are going to reduce our carbon emissions, as we committed to in Paris under the Paris climate accord.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague has ever seen any math from the Liberals that show where they intend to make other cuts in Canada's carbon emissions such that we can actually meet our commitments and do what we can to avoid that terribly serious 2°C rise in temperature, which will cause catastrophic climate change, not only in the future but now, when we are experiencing floods and forest fires all over the country.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

That is actually a significant gap in the Liberal strategy. The government signed the Paris Accord, but to date it has said nothing about how it will reach its targets, not to mention that it decided to triple the production or export capacity of a pipeline. I would like to see the numbers to show otherwise, but the government never proved that it took into account the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and that it would offset this increase with reductions in other sectors it had presumably targeted. Unfortunately, there is no transparency on that.

The government is moving forward blindly, making piecemeal decisions willy-nilly, and it does not seem to have a comprehensive strategy. A broader framework would perhaps allow us to discern that we are increasing these emissions in one sector but decreasing them in another, and that in the end we will reach our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

My colleague mentioned another discrepancy or inconsistency that is truly incredible. The Liberal government continues to believe that, like any other product, oil and raw products can be exported to other markets, processed there, and then returned to Canada for consumption, and that this is a credible strategy.

Once again, the government has shown a complete lack of vision by failing to ensure our goods and natural resources are value-added.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to our opposition day motion asking the Liberals to come clean on the carbon tax cover-up and tell Canadians exactly what the carbon tax is going to be costing Canadians.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Prince Albert.

The carbon tax and the issue we are facing now is part of a much larger narrative we are hearing from the Liberal government. We have heard it for several months, if not a couple of years now. It is the Liberals imposing these ideological policies without doing their due diligence and without having any understanding of the consequences of these decisions for everyday Canadians. They do not seem to do the fiscal analysis. They do not seem to do their homework and understand the consequences of their decisions on certain sectors of the economy.

I would like to bring forward one example. That example is something that is obviously important to me in my riding of Foothills, and that is the impact of the carbon tax on agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture, a couple of weeks ago, in our agriculture and agri-food committee, as well as in the Senate, claimed that Canadian farmers are very supportive of the Liberal's carbon tax. I have not spoken to one single farmer who has phoned me or sent me an email who supports the Liberal carbon tax. In fact, it is quite the opposite. They are extremely concerned about the impact the Liberal carbon tax will have on their farms. It is a farm-killing carbon tax.

I would like to quote a couple of prominent people from the industry. The chair of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association said, “I'm not sure who has been briefing [the agriculture minister], but he is dead wrong if he thinks that most farmers support the carbon tax”.

The president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association said, “Farmers don't agree on everything, but if there's one issue they stand together on, it's in opposition to a carbon tax.”

It appears that the agriculture minister is misrepresenting the view of Canadian farmers when it comes to the carbon tax. All we are asking the minister is how much the carbon tax is going to be impacting our Canadian farmers, yet the Liberals will not do that. They will not come clean with those numbers.

Farmers, ranchers, and ag processors are dependent on any constant they can have in their industry. Unlike any other sector, our farmers and ranchers face so many unknowns, whether commodity prices, weather, or trade agreements, and the Liberals are adding yet another piece of uncertainty to their livelihoods. The carbon tax is just another attack on rural Canadians, specifically on agriculture.

Let us take a look at some of the things our farmers and ranchers have had to face over the last couple of years with the Liberal government. There is front-of-pack labelling. This is going to be devastating to Canadian agriculture, and the government has absolutely refused to listen to our stakeholders. In fact, it has gone out of its way to ensure that they are not included in the debate on front-of-pack labelling.

The same can be said of Canada's food guide. The government is once again pushing ideological ideas, telling Canadians, according to another Liberal values test, what is healthy and what they should be eating. They are telling them to stay away from meat protein and dairy products, because those things are unhealthy. There is no common sense to that.

That is just the beginning. There is the bungling of trade agreements. We are losing a lot of our pulse export opportunities in India, one of our major trading partners. It is a $4-billion industry that is now in jeopardy because the Liberals have bungled our relationship with India.

Now we see that NAFTA is at a critical stage. We have finally seen the TPP tabled today, but will we ratify it so that we are one of the first six countries to take advantage of those new market opportunities? We have also heard that for our producers, their entrepreneurial spirit is being crushed by no longer being eligible for the small business tax deduction. All these things are making it more and more difficult for our agriculture sector and our farmers and ranchers to be successful, to reach those new markets, and to stay in business. It seems to be on every tool they have to be successful and wake up in the morning and go to work. It takes away their feeling that they are worthwhile and that what they are doing is appreciated by Canadians. That is why they are finding this to be most frustrating.

The Conservative are trying to fight for the taxpayer. We want to know what the implication of this will be for our constituents. At the agriculture and agri-food committee, we asked several times for a study on the carbon tax and the impact it would have on agriculture. Every time we asked, we were blocked by the Liberal members.

Farmers have earned the right to know how a Liberal policy will impact their everyday lives. It will impact their livelihood. Is this something they want to pass on to their sons, daughters, nieces, and nephews? Many of our farmers have been on the land for generations.

The other thing the Liberal carbon tax does not take into consideration is the environmental stewardship and the work our farmers have been doing for years to try to protect the land, aquifers, and waterways, which are so important to them. They use zero tillage, new methods and innovation to be on the land much less than they were, and are growing higher yields on less land. They have been doing all these things on their own, without having a carbon tax imposed on them. These things should be taken into consideration, but they are not. In fact, it has gone the other way. The government is going to impose yet another obstacle for our agriculture industry to be successful.

Earlier this morning my colleague talked about taxation without representation. This is yet another example of the Liberals moving ahead with an ideological policy but not having the confidence to take those decisions to Canadians. They do not have the confidence to open it up and put it on the table. The Liberals campaigned in 2015 about being open and transparent and doing things differently. They have had opportunities to come clean on the cost of this. We know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Department of Finance that the carbon tax will be more detrimental to rural Canadians, and even more detrimental to western farmers as opposed to eastern Canadian farmers. We know those numbers. Therefore, why will the Liberals not come clean and just say what it will cost and the impact it will have on the agricultural sector?

The Liberals keep talking about the importance of agriculture to our economy. They have set this goal of reaching $75 billion in exports by 2025. It is great to have those aspirational goals, but if, at the same time, they are cutting the legs out from under the agricultural sector, taking away every tool farmers have to try and reach that goal, then they are being disingenuous to our Canadian farmers.

Previously, I talked about taxation without representation. However, another tax that will have a profound impact on our farmers is the escalator tax. The Liberals have put forward an unprecedented escalator tax that will increase the cost of beer, wine, and spirits every year, and it will not have to go through the scrutiny of Parliament. Canadians will not have a voice or an opportunity to speak their minds on a tax increase that will come forward every year. That will impact our agriculture sector. We have barley and rye growers, and producers out there, certainly in the wine industry, who are very excited about the new opportunities with craft distilling and craft beer. They will pay the escalator tax over and over again, and now also for a carbon tax.

I do not think we are asking the Liberal government anything unwarranted. We asking it to be open, transparent, and honest with Canadians. What is the carbon tax going to cost our Canadian farmers and ranchers? They are up every day, putting in their blood, sweat, and tears to ensure we have the best quality food on our table and doing everything they can to feed the world. However, for every opportunity they have had, the Liberals have made it more and more difficult.

I will conclude with a question for the Liberal government. What is its farm-killing carbon tax going to cost Canadian farm families?

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

Mr. Speaker, the only aspect of the member's speech that I would concur with is the fact that we have outstanding farmers in Canada. I am very proud of the industry in my home province of Manitoba. The member made reference to zero tillage. There are so many fantastic examples of why Canada has the best farmers in the world. That is about where I fall offside with what my colleague has said.

The Conservatives are trying to create this great myth. Whether it is true or not, it does not matter. They have a narrative and they want to sell that narrative. It is as if they are the ones who want to give tax breaks to Canadians. When we brought in the tax break for Canada's middle class, the Conservatives voted against it. That is the reality.

Now they want to talk about the myth of putting a price on pollution as if it is a bad thing. Eighty per cent of Canadians already have a price on pollution in place. However, the Conservatives do not want that fact to confuse their narrative.

Earlier the member from the Conservative Party said that the Conservatives would insist on getting answers on the costs. Has the member obtained those costs from different provinces? After all, the provinces will be responsible for administering for this.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it almost humorous that the member talks about Conservatives putting out this myth. The myth is what the carbon tax will cost Canadians. If he does not want to talk about myths, then he should come clean and tell us what this will cost.

The government knows the numbers. We have the seen the document, but it has been redacted. The government will not come clean. The member is talking about these myths, but the Liberals are the ones who are covering this up. We are trying to find out what the cost is.

Once again the Liberals are very good at making a mess of policy, but then just throwing it to the provinces to make the decisions for them. The member says that 80% of Canadians already live in a jurisdiction with a carbon tax. That will be very different, very soon, with the change in government in Ontario. It will not be 80% anymore. A year from now, when the NDP is out of Alberta, it will not even be close to 80%.

We are seeing a trend. Canadians have started to understand the implication of what a carbon tax is. It is just a tax grab by Liberal and NDP governments that does absolutely nothing to address greenhouse gas emissions or climate change, or any of these things. It is a revenue generator for NDP and Liberal governments.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member made some references to front-of-package labelling. I am fortunate to be the critic for health for the New Democratic Party. We have taken a look at this.

As my hon. colleague might well know, we have quite a serious child obesity problem in the country. It is, in fact, a diabetes pandemic, as it has been described. Part of the problem has to do with our eating patterns. It has been suggested that if we can give consumers more information on the front of packages, particularly about sugar content, sodium content, and fat content, it would help Canadians better understand what they are eating, helping them live healthier lives.

Is the member in favour of giving consumers better and more accurate information on the front of packages or is he opposed to that?