Debates of June 14th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Carbon Pricing

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely in favour of Canadians making well-informed decisions when it comes to their food choices. What I am not in favour of is a Liberal government imposing a values test on the food we choose. When it comes to front-of-pack labelling, I want them to be based on good science. I have letters from literally hundreds of health experts and doctors who say that the direction the government is going with front-of-pack labelling is wrong. It is not based on good science. It is not based on common sense.

How can it be common sense when the government is going to put a warning label on plain yogurt, saying that it is unhealthy, and not doing the same on a can of diet cola? When we are talking about obesity and diabetes, where is the common sense in this, that a bag of potato chips will not have a warning sign on it, but a glass of 100% fruit juice will have a front-of-pack warning on it? If it is based on good science, then I could support that.

Draft Appropriation Bill—Main Estimates, 2018-19

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today the draft appropriation bill was circulated. I want to draw the House's attention to schedule 1, vote 40 for the Treasury Board Secretariat. The language used for vote 40 differs substantially from the language used in the estimates document. The estimates describe vote 40 as follows:

“Budget implementation $7,040,392,000”

Authority granted to the Treasury Board to supplement, in support of initiatives announced in the Budget of February 27, 2018, any appropriation for the fiscal year, including to allow for the provision of new grants or for any increase to the amount of a grant that is listed in any of the Estimates for the fiscal year, as long as the expenditures made possible are not otherwise provided for and are within the legal mandates of the departments or other organizations for which they are made

This is the language deemed to have been adopted and reported to the House by the government operations and estimates committee. The schedule description in the draft supply bill would confer different authority on the government, none of it approved or deemed to have been approved by the House. In short, the government is seeking new authority for unknown, unspecified spending of public monies without telling Parliament. It is creating what is commonly known as a slush fund by seeking to make expenditures based on the budget document rather than the estimates document, which carries the constitutionally significant recommendation of the Governor General.

I refer the Speaker to sections 53 and 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Standing Orders 79 and 80, chapter 18 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, and Sessional Paper No. 8520-421-181, which was transmitted to the House on April 16 in the form of a message from Her Excellency the Governor General, signed by her own hand. These are the main estimates.

Let me draw everyone's attention to page 883 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states, “Concurrence in the estimates or in interim supply is an order of the House to bring in an appropriation bill or bills giving effect to the spending authority (amounts and destinations) that the House has approved.” I emphasize, “that the House has approved”. It continues, “Supply bills must be based on the estimates or interim supply as concurred in by the House.” Again I emphasize, “as concurred in by the House”. The same language appears in the first and second editions.

Table A2.11 originated in the finance minister's budget. It is not contained in the estimates, is not part of the recommendations of the Governor General, has not been considered or concurred in by any committee, has not been concurred in by the House. Nor has any committee reported to the House to advocate that it be included in the supply bill.

It is not open to the government to create, delete, or alter the authority and purposes of the appropriation bill by inventing new language in this schedule, which alters the decisions of the House as expressed when it has concurred in the estimates contained in Sessional Paper No. 8520-421-181. The government is not entitled to rewrite the estimates in ways that amend the decisions of the House.

Let me conclude with a word of caution to the House, particularly in light of the present-day political conditions in the Senate.

Citation 619 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's states:

The legal right of the Senate, as a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature, to withhold their assent from any bill whatsoever is unquestionable. They may refuse to pass any bill, including money bills. Therefore the House should be cautious that a Supply Bill contains nothing extraneous so that the Senate will not depart from its normal practice of passing such bills as a matter of course.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will certainly take the information under advisement and will come back to the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Prince Albert.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Pricing

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I guess we just heard about another cover-up that the government is involved with. I am sure everyone is as shocked as I am. The government just cannot seem to do things out in the open and do things in a transparent manner, or in an informed manner, in order to move forward.

[An hon. member]

Sunny ways.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Yes, Madam Speaker, that is sunny ways, and that is how we see things.

The economy and the environment have to go hand in hand. Let us change it around. The environment and the economy must go hand in hand. We have heard this over and over again in the House. It is actually true. It is something that former Prime Minister Harper used to say too, the economy and the environment go hand in hand. It has to be balanced. He also would say, though, that as things are done on the environment file, other countries must take on their responsibilities as well. It cannot be done alone or in a vacuum.

I think that Ontario found that out the hard way when it proceeded down the road that they went on, with green power, solar power, and wind power. It ended up driving every business out of Ontario, or any new investment out of Ontario maybe would be a more accurate phrase.

I am really looking forward to a new Conservative government here in Ontario that is actually going to bring back some competitiveness into the business sector in Ontario so that Ontario's businesses can compete.

A carbon tax in Saskatchewan will not happen. It is Saskatchewan's jurisdiction to put on a tax. A member across the aisle just asked a question to the member for Foothills about seeking the advice of the provincial governments for their analysis on the carbon tax, because he has admitted it was their domain. He is right. It is Saskatchewan's domain as to whether or not it decides to put on a carbon tax, and it knows that would be a bad decision.

That does not mean that Saskatchewan is not being responsible about the environment. It presented a plan to the federal government that would allow them to meet all their environmental requirements, emissions requirements, and be progressive without a carbon tax. One would think the environment minister would say that is great, that she is excited for Saskatchewan, and proud of it. However, what did she do? In the last budget she put $104 million in the budget for carbon costs. Wait a minute. This is supposed to be revenue neutral. Where is the $104 million coming from? There goes revenue neutral.

That just shows the reality of what the government is doing with the carbon tax. It is a way for it to tax people. It is a way for it to pick winners and losers in the economy as it sees fit. It is a way for the government to put its fingers where they do not belong.

In Saskatchewan we have been concerned about the environment for years, long before “environmental protection” and “environmental assessment” or “taking care of the environment” were the cool words being expressed by the environment minister here today, this week, or the last couple of years. I can think back to “no till”. Saskatchewan embraced no till. It is actually good for the soil, good for the water, and good for the environment. Farmers grabbed that technology and said, yes, this makes sense. The other thing that happened with no till was that it was economical. It made sense economically for them to do that. That is why it was embraced. This is a classic example of the economy and the environment going hand in hand. If we look at things in the economy that actually improve the environment, no till is a classic example. Direct seed is another classic example.

We should not kid ourselves. There were lots of challenges starting down that path, and lots of issues with weed management, crop rotations, and soil degradation. All of those things have to be figured out and managed, but the will and the spirit of the farmers of Canada, and in western Canada, can overcome that. Now if we look at the Prairies, and they end up with a summer with four or five inches of rain, they would still get a crop. However, back in the 1970s if they ended up with just four inches of rain, it would be a dust bowl. That is the advantage that Saskatchewan and the farmers in western Canada and Ontario have by taking care of the environment, and also by having a good economic future.

When we look at the carbon tax, it does not do that. If a farmer in western Canada has a carbon tax, he or she is less competitive than all other farmers in the world. We take the world price. The price for wheat is set in Minneapolis or Chicago, as are the prices for soybeans and canola. Everything is interrelated. When I have a carbon tax I cannot pass that cost on. I am not a manufacturer. I am a farmer. I take the market price based on the global supply and demand, so when I have to pay that cost it comes off my bottom line.

What does that mean to me and my operation? That means profits come out of my operation that normally would have gone to reinvesting in my farm to make it even more environmentally friendly and more economical, investing in new technologies and new machinery that would actually reduce my greenhouse gases even more. However, because I am sending it to Ottawa I cannot do that. Does that make sense?

There are so many things about the carbon tax that Canadians have to get their heads around, which the Liberals have not gotten their heads around.

We have manufacturing facilities and we have steel plants that are the most green and efficient in the world, yet because of the carbon tax they are shutting down. What will be replacing them? Those products still are required by Canadians and people around the world. The products that will be replacing them are from plants in other jurisdictions that do not have the same environmental regulations, that do not have the same requirements to labour codes and safety. The products are coming from India and China and places like that, which our Canadian companies cannot compete with because they have a carbon tax.

Have Liberals helped the environment when they shut down Canadian companies so that companies in China can just build more product as they see fit without any concern for the environment? No, they have done the opposite. They have not only put Canadians out of work; they have actually done more harm to the environment. There must be a better scheme to hit the emissions targets than a carbon tax, and that message has been repeated over and over again to that deaf group on the opposite side.

We have to step back and ask what they are doing this for. Why is this moving forward? Why would they want this? They have all this evidence to show them that the carbon tax does not work. Australia tried it and backed away from it and ended it. France was going to do it, but the French did their analysis and then said they were not going to do it. That is why we are asking the government to do its analysis and make it public because it might look at it and say this is stupid and we had better not do it. I think the reality is that they have looked at the numbers and said this is stupid but we are still going to do it.

What do we do? How do we help them? There are so many examples in the current government where the Liberals have done things where we tried to help them, but they put on their blinders and were going to do it their way. In the meantime, who pays? Canadians and Canadian jobs pay. At the end of the day, what does this country look like?

The Liberals inherited a balanced budget. They inherited a strong economy. They inherited a low unemployment rate. They have spent billions and billions of dollars, on what? What has it gone to? Has it gone to more government bureaucracy? I do not see any new bridges. I do not see any new roads. I do not see any new sewers or septic. I hear of a lot more bureaucrats being hired. I hear a lot of giggles and laughter over there. They can spend money like drunken sailors and they do not seem to care. I care, because my kids are going to pay for it. The graduation classes of 2018 are going to have to pay for the mistakes of the current government, and the Liberals do not care because they do not have to pay. It is not their money.

In closing, I look at this and I am amazed at how many times the government has refused to look at science, has refused to look at the evidence, and has decided to put things in place that go against science. The classic example is the number of bills they have put through this House of Commons where the minister gets the final say, not science and not industry. Decisions should be based on good science, whether it is a pipeline or a new food product. New food products should be based on science and whether they are safe to eat.

What do they put in? They put that the minister will decide, and by the way, the minister will decide without any consequences or any responsibility to inform how he or she came to that decision. They wonder why people do not want to invest in Canada. It is because it has become such an unpredictable environment to invest in. Why would they?

When we talk about a carbon tax cover-up, that is exactly what it is because I think they know the numbers and they do not want to tell us. The reason they do not want to tell us is that the numbers are bad and they are trying to look for another reason to hide this carbon tax. The latest spin is that it is the provinces' jurisdiction. Okay, if it is the provinces' jurisdiction, then they should butt out of Saskatchewan's business and mind their own.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I want to take up this notion that there is some report that this government has generated that it is not sharing with the Canadian people, because I have heard it referred to over and over again as a cover-up.

They acquired the document that was redacted through the Freedom of Information Act, which is a process entirely governed by public servants, not by the government of the day. The document they are holding up was released literally the day after the last federal election, before the results were even gazetted, before any members of this House of Commons were legally even put in their seats, let alone appointed as ministers. Even the Prime Minister had not been sworn in. The report that they are talking about is one that the previous government commissioned before it left office, and that the previous government played a role in composing and reporting.

I just wonder why the members opposite do not talk to members of the previous cabinet who may have read the document, held the document, had carriage of the document, understood the document, framed the terms of reference for the document, produced the document, held the document in their hands, and actually had the document before we even got into power. The document they want they had; they just forgot to read it. I am curious as to why they do not read their government documents. Is that really the way the rest of the cabinet functioned over the last 10 years?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of points I am going to make. First, if it is not the Liberals' document, why are they hiding it? Why has it been redacted? If it is not their document, they should let people see it. The second point is that if it is not their document, where is their document? Why have you not done the research? Why have you not done the science? Why have you not allowed committees to do the studies to see the impacts? Why did you block it at every committee? The reality is that they know and they do not want us to know.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that the debate is not to be going back and forth; rather, it is to be directed through the Speaker. I would also remind the member to address his replies to the Speaker and not the individual members or the government.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I try to be as fair-minded as possible in this place. I would not have constructed the carbon tax the way it has been constructed. However, it is incontrovertible that the best evidence from around the world, from established agencies like the International Monetary Fund, the International Energy Agency, and the World Bank, is that all economies need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, as Stephen Harper promised to do in 2009, and all economies need to put a price on carbon. In this country and this generation, I absolutely understand why the Liberals have structured it so that any province can design its own plan and the money will be returned to that province. Therefore, it is revenue neutral to the federal government. However, it is not clear whether it is going to be revenue neutral in the hands of that province, but that is up to the individual province.

Does the Conservative Party object to the idea that dumping pollution into the atmosphere should not be free?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's open-mindedness. The question I would ask her is this. When we have a province like Saskatchewan that has a plan that is going to reduce emissions, will be good for the environment, and will meet all the targets that have been laid in front of us, why would the government not accept it? If that plan does not include a carbon tax, why is that a problem?

It should not be a problem if we have met all of our requirements and obligations but have done it in a different way. Why should the government be upset if it is done in a different way? It comes back to what the end game is for this carbon tax. The word is “taxation”. That is the end game for the current government. Whether it is directly or indirectly, it will have more revenues from a carbon tax. It is going to take money out of the pockets of people and will not change the activities of the people on the ground. Rural farmers have to drive to town. They have to burn petrol. There is no way around it at this point in time, and there is no way around it in the near future. Why punish those rural farmers by taxing them? That is what Saskatchewan did. It found a better way to do it without punishing those rural farmers.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask a very quick question of my colleague. The Liberal agriculture minister said that Canadian farmers support the carbon tax. I would like to ask the member what he is hearing from the farmers in his constituency.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, laughing is the first part. The second part is, and we can see it on Twitter, “Who were you talking to? Are you delirious?” This is a classic example of the Liberals telling farmers what they should believe instead of listening to farmers and bringing it back to Ottawa. We have seen that from the member for Regina—Wascana over and over again. He goes from Ottawa to Regina and tells the people in Regina what they need to know, instead of taking the concerns from the people of Regina back to Ottawa. It is the classic Liberals. APAS and the Grain Growers of Canada have all come out publicly and said they are against a carbon tax, full stop.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for La Prairie.

The impacts of climate change, such as coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, and increases in heat waves, droughts, and flooding are already being felt throughout Canada. In response to the critical need to take urgent national action on this global issue, Canada's first ministers adopted the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change on December 9, 2016. One of the core elements of the framework is to put a price on carbon pollution throughout Canada.

Pricing carbon is widely recognized as an efficient way to reduce emissions at the lowest cost to business and consumers, and to support innovation and clean growth. The aim of putting a price on carbon pollution is to reduce emissions by sending a price signal to the economy as a whole. Businesses, investors, and consumers change their behaviour when they take carbon pricing into account in their daily decision-making.

Carbon pricing has worked all over the world, from British Columbia to California to the United Kingdom. In all of those places, emissions have dropped and the economy has continued to grow. Just recently, Environment and Climate Change Canada released a new analysis confirming that carbon pricing will do the same across Canada, significantly reducing emissions while maintaining strong economic growth.

The new study found that carbon pricing could reduce carbon pollution by up to 90 million tonnes across Canada in 2022, as much as taking 26 million cars off the road for a year or shutting down more than 20 coal plants. The study also found that GDP growth would remain strong with a nationwide price on carbon pollution. Canada's GDP is expected to grow by approximately 2% a year between now and 2022, with or without carbon pricing.

Almost 85% of Canadians already live in a province or territory that puts a price on carbon pollution, and all governments have committed to some form of carbon pricing.

To extend carbon pricing across Canada, in October 2016, the Prime Minister released the federal carbon pricing standard, a benchmark, that gives provinces and territories the flexibility to implement the type of system that is best for them, while setting certain basic criteria that all systems must meet to ensure that they are fair and effective.

The Government of Canada is also committed to developing and implementing a federal carbon pricing system as a backstop. This backstop will therefore apply to any province or territory that does not have a carbon pricing system that meets the federal standard.

The greenhouse gas pricing act establishes the legal framework for the federal carbon pricing system, which serves as a backstop. The primary objective of the act is to help reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by ensuring that a price is set on carbon across Canada and that it increases over time.

As part of its commitment to the Canada-wide approach to carbon pricing, the government will apply the federal pricing system only to the provinces and territories that it lists in schedule 1 of the act because they do not have a system that meets the benchmark. It also states that it will assess the provincial and territorial systems annually to ensure that they continue to meet this benchmark.

The federal carbon pricing system introduced by the act has two components: a levy on fossil fuels that is generally payable by fuel producers or distributors, also known as “fuel costs”; and a performance-based system for industrial facilities, also known as “production-based pricing”. These components are intended to complement each other and to ensure that there is no double pricing.

In December, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change wrote to the provincial and territorial governments to provide them with the carbon pricing timelines. Provinces and territories wishing to establish or maintain their own systems must confirm their intentions by September 1, 2018. The Government of Canada will then determine whether the provincial and territorial systems will meet the federal carbon pricing standard.

In provinces and territories that do not meet the federal standard, the federal carbon pricing system will apply as of January 1, 2019, at an initial price of $20 per tonne of emissions. Provincial and territorial systems will be assessed annually. This timeline provides clarity to everyone involved and will enable consumers, businesses, and investors to make informed decisions.

Businesses already know carbon pricing makes good sense. According to a report from the Carbon Disclosure Project, the number of companies with plans to internally price their own carbon pollution increased between 2014 and 2017, from 150 to almost 1,400. The list includes more than 100 of the world's largest companies, with total annual revenues of $7 trillion.

In Canada, many energy companies, our top five banks, and major consumer goods companies support a price on pollution. They are all part of the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition. They know carbon pricing can make Canadian businesses more innovative and competitive, and that it provides certainty to investors.

A recent study ranked Canada fourth in the world as a clean technology innovator, up from seventh place in 2014. Last year, 11 of Canada's clean-tech companies ranked in the top 100 worldwide.

Companies such as Winnipeg's Farmers Edge are developing cutting-edge technologies that help farmers waste less energy and increase their profits. Ecobee in Toronto makes smart thermostats that link up with smart phones to help Canadians save money and make their homes more comfortable. Dartmouth's CarbonCure has developed a technology to capture carbon pollution from industry and use it to make stronger concrete.

This is the kind of innovation and entrepreneurship carbon pricing is designed to support. These kinds of technologies help protect our environment, create new opportunities and middle-class jobs, and help our industries to compete.

According to the World Bank, jurisdictions representing about half the global economy are putting a price on carbon, and that does not include China's national system announced late last year. As of 2018, 70 jurisdictions around the world at the national and subnational levels are putting a price on carbon.

The approach to carbon pricing is going to ensure that Canadians are well placed to benefit from the opportunities created by the global transition that is now under way. Carbon pricing is the most effective way to reduce emissions. It creates incentives for businesses and households to innovate and pollute less. Innovation is key to keeping Canada's economy competitive. Carbon pricing brings down emissions while driving investment in energy efficiency and in cleaner, less polluting energy sources.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was not able to hear the member's entire speech, but I did hear a good portion of what he was sharing in his comments. It is clear that he is unwilling to use the term carbon tax.

What I find really disappointing is that the Liberal Party, for many weeks now, in fact months, has refused to tell Canadians how much the carbon tax will cost the average Canadian family. Worse still, it is not willing to share what impact that carbon tax will have on implementing greenhouse gas reductions.

Why put a carbon tax on something if it is not going to achieve what the Liberals say it is going to achieve, and then not disclose what the actual cost will be?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government has produced a report, and I mentioned it in my speech.

Essentially the problem with the opposition is that it views the economy as a single-lever mechanism, almost like a well pump, where cause and effect are clear.

The economy is made up of millions of decisions made by individual consumers, by businesses, and by governments.

In the report that is on the website, and I would encourage members to turn on their computer and access the website, there is a quote, as follows:

Accurately assessing how pricing carbon pollution could affect the economy and emissions depends on the choices governments make about which carbon pricing system they adopt—a direct price, a cap-and-trade system, or a hybrid system. How they choose to use the revenues generated from carbon pricing also has a big impact. Revenue can be used for rebates, tax cuts, incentives for energy efficiency or investments in clean infrastructure and innovation. Furthermore, forecasting future economic conditions involves simplifying very complex systems and making many assumptions, resulting in an inherent amount of uncertainty.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, under the previous Conservative government, former prime minister Harper received “Fossil of the Year” awards repeatedly at international climate conferences, yet the Liberal government continues to carry on with the same discredited greenhouse gas emission reduction targets of the Conservative Party.

While New Democrats agree that putting a price on carbon pollution is important, as it is for all forms of pollution, we are extremely discouraged that the Liberal government continues to subsidize fossil fuel expansion, including purchasing a leaky old pipeline. It is mind-blowing, honestly, to think that is where we are.

How does the member opposite view carbon pricing in conjunction with a failure to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond what the Harper Conservatives promised?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative government did not perform on this issue. I could not agree more with the member. The reason was that even though it talked about targets and put targets in the window, it never took the actions necessary to achieve those targets.

Our government is taking probably the single biggest measure possible to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. The biggest fossil fuel subsidy that exists is the fact that the cost of pollution is not internalized in businesses and organizations that pollute. A price on carbon is meant to take account of that externality, which is the cost of pollution to our environment and to our society. The biggest subsidy of all is the fact that it does not cost to pollute, to produce greenhouse gas emissions and put them into the environment.

The government is taking the strongest step possible in this regard. As the member knows, there is really no agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a fossil fuel subsidy, other than the fact that when there is not a price on carbon and when polluting is free, that is the biggest subsidy of all.

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to further address the member’s question on a carbon price in agriculture.

In fact, in many ways agriculture is leading the way in our transition to a low-carbon economy. Feeding a growing world population with sustainable agriculture is one of the defining challenges of our time. How do we achieve this goal? One word: innovation. Sustainability and innovation go hand in hand. The agriculture sector already has a solid track record of innovating and adopting new technologies to improve environmental performance and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In fact, for more than a decade, greenhouse gases from agriculture have remained stable despite growth in production. A century ago, the average farmer produced enough food for about ten people. Today, that farmer can feed well over a hundred.

There is no doubt that science is our most powerful tool when it comes to environment and climate change issues. Thanks to science, Canadian farmers are producing more food with less land and less water. We can indeed have sustainable agriculture for generations to come, but we need to be willing to invest. The government places a high priority on helping farmers adjust to the effects of climate change. Climate change and environment are at the heart of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's new Canadian agricultural partnership.

Through this partnership, over the next five years, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments will invest $3 billion in key priorities of the agriculture sector—including the environment. Programs will help farmers capitalize on opportunities for sustainable growth while adapting to climate change. They will help farmers adopt agriculture technologies and tools to reduce GHG emissions.

Another tremendous success story is the environmental farm plans. The program helps farmers sit down and make an environmental plan for their farm, targeting practical solutions that they can use to help the environment, while boosting their bottom line.

Supported by federal-provincial-territorial funding, over the past quarter century, more than 70,000 Canadian farmers have developed environmental farm plans. Our scientists, working with universities and industry, are also fully engaged in the fight against climate change.

Under budget 2017, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is investing $70 million in agricultural science to address emerging priorities, such as climate change and soil and water conservation.

We are proud to be a government that recognizes science and research as important drivers of clean growth in the agricultural sector.

We will continue to support science and research, including on innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This includes our investment of $25 million to support the adoption of clean technology by Canadian agricultural producers.

The $2-billion low-carbon economy fund helps provinces and territories to reduce GHG emissions, for example through carbon storage in agricultural soils.

Furthermore, the government is investing $27 million in the agricultural greenhouse gases program to help farmers reduce their carbon footprint. This program is helping farmers reduce greenhouse gases and adjust to climate change in four key areas: management and feeding strategies, capturing carbon through land and tillage practices, agroforestry, and irrigation and drainage for crop production. There are 20 projects at leading universities across Canada, all focused on helping farmers make their farms even greener than they are today.

Recent projects include measuring the environmental footprint of blueberry, potato, and forage cropping systems; environmentally-friendly grazing systems for cattle; and new cereal crops that do not have to be planted every year, saving fertilizer and water. There is also the $5.2-million agricultural youth green jobs initiative, which helps place young Canadians in green jobs within the agriculture sector.

My message today is that Canadian farmers are, and will continue to be, part of the climate change solution. That is why our carbon pricing policy reflects the realities of Canada’s agricultural industry. Our government recognizes that Canadian farmers and farm families are important drivers of the Canadian economy. We understand that Canadian farmers are making important contributions in the fight against climate change, for example by adopting sustainable technologies and practices like precision agriculture or conservation tillage.

We know that farmers are price takers and cannot easily pass cost increases on to consumers. That is why gasoline and diesel fuel for on-farm use is exempt from carbon pricing under the federal backstop. Alberta and British Columbia have already exempted these fuels from their carbon pricing policies. Furthermore, emissions from crop and livestock production will not be subject to carbon pricing under the federal backstop.

Over 70% of Canadian farms are located in provinces that already have a carbon pricing system in place. British Columbia, Quebec, Alberta, and Ontario, which account for 80% of Canada's GHG emissions, have already implemented carbon pricing mechanisms.

The pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change was negotiated with the provinces and territories. This historic national framework recognizes that climate action may differ from one region to the next across the country. That is why the framework gives jurisdictions the flexibility to design approaches to pricing pollution that best suit their conditions and priorities, provided they meet the federal benchmark. The provinces and territories are invited to develop their own pricing schemes. They can therefore keep the direct revenues they raise from carbon pricing to use as they see fit.

Ontario and Quebec have cap and trade systems in place. Alberta has a hybrid pricing system. In all three provinces, these systems include opportunities for producers to sell their emission reductions for cash payment. Many producers in Alberta were paid because they used no-till farming.

Stakeholders have asked to be consulted and we are listening. The government will continue to engage industries, provincial and territorial governments, indigenous peoples, environmental groups, and stakeholders on the design of the federal carbon pricing system.

Canada has the opportunity to be a global leader when it comes to feeding a growing world population sustainably. The government will provide the investments needed to maximize and accelerate the efforts of our farmers, our scientists, and industry. The government is committed to supporting farmers as they continue to be responsible stewards of our land, and will continue to work with farmers to help them capture sustainable growth while adapting to climate change.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for drawing attention to the great agricultural initiatives that are improving our soil quality.

I have some of the best farmers in all of Canada in my riding, Kitchener—Conestoga. In fact, many are being proactive by planting cover crops to sequester carbon and by reducing tillage and fuel use. They are already doing many of these activities. However, added to that we have this punishing carbon tax, which, in my riding, is going to add up to $6,000 for an average farmer just for fuel.

My colleague says that two provinces have exempted fuel for farms, but Ontario is not one of them. Therefore, in my riding, a farmer will pay an extra $6,000 just because of this carbon tax, and that does not count the cost of getting his produce to market, whether that is grain or livestock, or getting fuel or fertilizer to his farm.

This is punishing our farmers, and worse than that, this cost will be added and passed on to middle-class Canadians. Why is the government punishing them in that way?

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians know that there is a cost to pollution. We see it in the droughts, floods, forest fires, and extreme weather events that are occurring. We see it in the effects that pollution has on our health. It is time polluters paid the price.

Ensuring that there is a price on pollution across the country is a matter of fairness. Putting a price on pollution helps us to fight climate change, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, put money in Canadians' pockets, and above all, create jobs for the middle class.

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

Madam Speaker, as I was listening to the debate here today, a bulletin just came through on my computer about a new, disturbing report that the west Antarctic ice sheet is melting three times faster than it was the last time it was checked.

When sea ice melts, it does not affect the sea level. It can affect currents, such as the Gulf Stream, but because it is ice floating on water, it does not cause sea level rise. However, ice sheets, such as the Greenland ice sheet and the west Antarctic ice sheet, sit on land. This is global research in which the University of Toronto collaborated, and it states that if we lose either one of those, it would contribute eight metres to sea level rise. That is eight metres of sea level rise from a single event, if we lose the west Antarctic ice sheet or the Greenland ice sheet.

The hon. member detailed a number of measures we have taken so far. They are not sufficient to meet the Paris target. We are not aiming at the right target. This kind of information requires the kind of full-court press that says the government will do everything it can to preserve every coastal city. I would ask for the member's response to that.

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Almost every carbon pricing system in the world includes a mechanism for protecting competitiveness and heavy industry. That includes the systems in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, California, the European Union, and China. We are generating clean economic growth in Canada while protecting competitiveness.

Jurisdictions representing nearly half the global economy are putting a price on carbon, but some companies in Canada compete with other companies that are not subject to a carbon tax. We will continue to protect our environment. As we have been saying from the start, economic development and the environment go hand in hand.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

For a party that campaigned in 2015 on running an open and transparent government and on being “open by default”, it really is sad to see it has broken this promise, along with many other promises it made in the 2015 campaign.

We had no other choice but to bring this motion forward today. I want to read the motion. It states:

That, given the government’s failure to provide a clear explanation of the costs of its carbon tax policy, and given that the people of Ontario have rejected the carbon tax, the House call on the government to table, by June 22, 2018, how much the proposed federal carbon tax of $50 per tonne will cost a median Canadian family.

The government knows how much this tax will cost Canadians. It has documents that outline exactly how much it will cost, and we have those documents as well. The only difference is the documents we received have redacted information. That does not sound like “open by default” to me. What exactly do the Liberals have to hide behind all that black ink? We have a pretty good idea of what they are trying to hide by covering up these numbers.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has provided us with some unsavoury data. In his most recent economic and fiscal outlook he found:

Implementation of [the federal government's] carbon pricing levy...will generate a headwind for the Canadian economy over the medium term as the levy rises from $10 per tonne of CO2 equivalent in 2018 to $50 per tonne in 2022. Based...on analysis conducted by the Ecofiscal Commission, we project that real GDP will be 0.5 per cent lower in 2022 [than it would otherwise be]. This amounts to $10 billion in 2022.

That is $10 billion out of our economy.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer speaks of headwinds. All of us who travel to Ottawa know how headwinds impact us. Travelling on the 401, the 407, or the 417, when we are travelling into headwinds we know our gas mileage is going to go down significantly. Likewise, we know the carbon tax will decrease our GDP significantly.

What this government has been open about since being elected is that it has no desire to control its reckless spending and bring the budget back to balance. Now we know that its plan to force a carbon tax on the provinces to finance its growing national debt will not even help balance the budget. It will do the exact opposite. It is going to cost our Canadian economy an extra $10 billion.

In addition to the damaging effects the tax will have on our economy, it will raise the cost of everything for my constituents of Kitchener—Conestoga. The Liberals admit that gasoline prices will go up by at least 11¢ a litre and that the cost of heating one's home will increase by over $200. The members of the Liberal Party may not think that is a lot of money, but for middle-class Canadians in my riding every penny counts. The Liberals forget that the decisions to commute to work, drive their kids to soccer or hockey practice, heat their homes, or travel to see loved ones are real choices to be made and that there are real costs involved. My constituents in Kitchener—Conestoga often have to commute into Toronto and other parts of Ontario for work, to visit family, or to watch a Blue Jays game. The Liberal carbon tax is going to force my constituents to choose between those important things and putting food on the table.

This past winter, in most parts of Canada, it was a pretty cold one. Perhaps members of the Liberal Party prefer to spend winters in Florida, or somewhere warm, but I can assure them, southwestern Ontario is known to dip well below freezing in the winter months, and that is what makes this carbon tax even more outrageous. It will punish Canadians for heating their homes. This is not a frivolous expense. It is an absolute necessity, and when asked about these rising costs, the Prime Minister responded that this is exactly what the government wants. The government should be working to lower taxes for Canadians and making life more affordable, not working to punish Canadians and impose unwanted taxes on the provinces.

That brings me to my next point. Last week, Ontarians were loud and clear. They are sick and tired of the Liberals' reckless spending, and they do not support a carbon tax. Ontarians have had enough with the failed energy plans of the Ontario Liberals and this Liberal government in Ottawa.

The provincial governments of Ontario and Saskatchewan have indicated they will be taking the federal government to court to fight against its top-down, heavy-handed, mandatory carbon tax.

Alberta will soon join them in opposing this tax that does absolutely nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What has become crystal clear since the Liberals formed government in 2015, is that their approach to federalism has left this country fractured. One only has to look at Alberta and British Columbia with two NDP governments warring with one another, introducing tariffs, and taking each other to court, all as a result of the government's failed leadership.

Under our Conservative government we saw an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and we did not raise taxes to do it. We focused on target regulations, incremental changes, and encouraging provinces to create their own individual plans. Members opposite would claim that we did not do anything for the environment, but that is simply not the case. As former chair of the environment committee, I know that our government was committed to cleaning up the environment, investing in wetlands, investing in conservation, and encouraging sustainable energy. That is how we see real change. In fact, during our government's mandate, greenhouse gas emissions reduced while the economy grew.

Canadians and Conservatives understand that we cannot tax our way to a cleaner environment. Take British Columbia as an example. Despite having the highest carbon tax in Canada, emissions have continued to rise in British Columbia. As a result, British Columbians now pay more for gas than anyone else in North America. British Columbia's carbon tax is not helping the environment, it is just costing people more to get to work and to take their kids to hockey or soccer practice.

Before the next election, our Conservative leader will be unveiling a detailed and comprehensive environmental plan. One thing that one can be sure about our plan, though, is that it will not punish everyday Canadians for commuting to work or for heating their homes.

Last, I would be remiss if I did not talk about the effect this carbon tax will have on our farmers. I represent some of Canada's best farmers in the rural part of Kitchener—Conestoga. I know that farmers are the best stewards of the land and that no one cares more about the well-being of our environment than they do.

Dale Leftwich, writing for RealAgriculture, has this to say in regard to farmers' impact on the environment and the effects of a federal liberal carbon tax:

Scientists are beginning to fully understand how much carbon is being sequestered in soils by farmers. There is evidence that reductions in summer fallow and new farming methods are improving soil health and increasing soil organic matter. In other words, the depletion of the soil which began with the first plowing has been reversed in recent years, and farms are now on a more sustainable footing. If pricing carbon acts as a deterrent to this trend, it will be worse than ineffective, it will be disastrous.

He went on to say:

There is a long shadow in Canada of poorly conceived energy policies. These have strained interprovincial relations and limited economic growth. Some see carbon pricing as déjà vu all over again. They suspect that urban dwellers will benefit from increased economic activity and jobs while farmers will be forced to foot the bill. Many farmers are also skeptical about the doom and gloom scenarios so common today. At the same time, because farmland sequesters huge amounts of carbon, farmers want to be considered part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Most do not want a cheque for what they do but would like to be left alone to farm in a sustainable manner, and not be harassed by yet another costly program based on incomplete science. They worry that expensive, ineffective onerous policies will be put in place, not because they are scientifically proven, but because they are popular. And that is an inconvenient truth that should worry us all.

I could not have said it better. I hope that members opposite will stand up for transparency, stand up for middle-class Canadians, and support this Conservative motion.