Debates of June 14th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Carbon Pricing

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that the Liberals believe in a clean environment. We on this side of the House believe in that also. That is why we have to go forward.

The problem we are having is understanding why the Prime Minister is making contradictory statements. On one hand, he is committed to meeting ambitious environmental targets, and on the other he keeps giving billions of dollars away to oil and gas companies. How does he plan to meet his commitments to the international community?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate we have a shared vision of the need to put a price on carbon. What I would say is the following. The Prime Minister has been very clear that we need to grow our economy, while at the same time protecting our environment. These go hand in hand.

The simple fact is that Canadians cannot be treated for fools. There is absolutely no such thing as dealing with climate change in the absence of having a broader perspective on what it takes to grow jobs for the middle class. A price on carbon is absolutely core to the system.

While the opposition, with respect, is engaging in all sorts of false debates around what an investment in the Trans Mountain pipeline project is all about, it is distracting from a much more important policy issue, which is how we are going to ensure that Canada integrates a price on pollution so that all economic actors are able to contribute in an appropriate way to a cleaner and greener economy.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Carleton's motion is interesting, but one that seems to miss the point on at least two levels. First, as has been pointed out in the House before, pricing carbon pollution is widely acknowledged as one of the most important tools for combatting climate change. That is because it follows a classic economic principle. If we want to encourage certain kinds of activity, provide an incentive for doing more of it. If we want to discourage an activity such as producing carbon, we create a disincentive so that there is less of it. This is well understood because it just makes sense.

It is certainly understood by the more than 42 countries that have adopted some form of carbon pricing. It is understood by some 25 subnational jurisdictions that have done the same. Indeed, the number of carbon pricing initiatives that have been implemented or planned for implementation has almost doubled since 2013. Among those pricing or planning to price carbon are the European Union, China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Colombia, and California, just to name a few.

In the case of China, that country has tested a cap-and-trade system in nine of its 23 provinces. The plan is to take the system national and when that happens, fully one-quarter of the world's carbon emissions will be priced at one level or another. The opposition increasingly finds itself on the outside looking in, outside of a growing consensus sweeping the globe, outside of the economic mainstream that wants to discourage the production of carbon by pricing it, outside of nation after nation and state after state that know that this is the best, most effective way to reduce carbon pollution.

Nor is it just governments that have seen the wisdom of putting a price on carbon, so too have companies. Indeed, the private sector, that same private sector that the opposition claims to understand and represent, has been calling on governments to price carbon for years. Many are not waiting. By last year, more than 1,300 companies had implemented or were planning to implement internal carbon pricing. That is up from 150 just four years ago.

Why is that? If pricing carbon pollution is so devastating, why are companies jumping on board? What do they know that the opposition does not? They understand the benefits to their businesses. They know that it is the best way of achieving the desired public policy objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That is the free market in action. That is how forward-thinking companies are dealing with the challenges and opportunities of climate change. They are turning the genius of free enterprise to finding creative and innovative ways to avoid disincentives. Again, it is just Economics 101.

Our government believes in the free market system. By sending clear market signals, we are unleashing its power to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, spurring innovation and improving our competitiveness.

These clear market signals do something else as well. They encourage companies to look for better ways of doing things including using different sources of energy and using less energy overall. That is critical, because the International Energy Agency has said that we can get halfway to our Paris commitments just by using energy more efficiently.

I would also remind the House that pricing carbon pollution is something that the United Nations is championing. It has challenged companies to "reach the next level of climate performance and to advocate for a price on carbon as a necessary and effective measure to tackle the climate change challenge."

Why is this obvious to everyone but members of the opposition? Why do they not get it? Why do they not see what everyone else does, that pricing carbon pollution must be part of the solution to climate change?

That is the first problem with this motion, it misses the point by missing the boat, by opposing a tool that the world is embracing.

Second, it misses the point by overlooking one of the key features of our carbon pricing proposal, that revenue from pricing pollution will not end up in Ottawa. All direct revenues collected by our government will be returned to the province or territory they came from.

Governments in Canada today are investing carbon pricing revenues in rebates and tax cuts for households. They are supporting competitiveness for industry and investing in climate action, clean technology, and innovation. Those are the kinds of wise investments our government is making today.

We are supporting new electricity infrastructure and smart grids, clean power like wind and solar, hydro, geothermal, and biomass. We are building healthier communities and creating new economic opportunities by developing alternatives to diesel. We are investing in electric and alternative fuel charging stations and more energy efficient homes.

Investments like these will take us closer to the future we want: a country defined by innovation, ingenuity, and clean technology. It is a future that is within our grasp, not by clinging to the past but by embracing the future, not by opposing just for the sake of opposing but by recognizing the world has seen the virtues of carbon pricing, and it is pressing ahead.

It has been said that an error does not become a mistake until one refuses to correct it. The opposition has erred in standing against pricing carbon pollution. It is time to correct it.

I invite members opposite to join with us, to join with countries and companies from around the world, and to join with the United Nations to help build a better and cleaner future for our children and the generations to come.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Pontiac said that greenhouse gas emissions know no national boundary. I think everyone in the House recognizes that is true.

My riding is very agricultural but also very industrial. There are two automotive plants and a lot of suppliers to the automotive industry. I wonder if the member opposite could tell me about the carbon tax in Michigan, Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. These are all states that end up getting our cheap electricity because of the green energy policy in Ontario and are now competing with our industry. Does the member recognize that we will be putting ourselves at a terrible disadvantage?

The people of Ontario spoke very loudly in Ontario last week. Does he have any thoughts on that whole issue?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of farmers back home, which is in Ontario. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment have heard them loud and clear. Should the Ford government decide to cancel carbon pricing, I can reassure them that the federal program on a price on carbon will not impact farmers.

Why is the opposition pressing us to vote here tonight? Are we going to continue hearing empty rhetoric with empty chairs? How many Conservative members will be here tonight?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for his speech.

Unfortunately, I think the Liberals are going to have to make an effort to explain their point of view. In his speech, the member said we need to send clear market signals. I am lost for words, because buying a leaky, overpriced pipeline does not send a clear market signal that things are changing in Canada.

If this government really wants to ensure that economic development goes hand in hand with natural resource development, it needs to show us that it is making progress on promoting cleaner extraction methods. This is a dialogue of the deaf. Some members are saying we must not implement a scary carbon tax, while others are saying we should implement it and then going off and buying pipelines.

Can we get some nuanced thinking? Could someone in the government tell us what the cleanest options for oil sands development are? I never hear anything about that, and buying a pipeline certainly does not send a clear market signal.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that our approach is well balanced. If we told the Albertans tomorrow morning that we were going to shut down all the oil plants, I do not think they would be happy. Telling a family they will be out of a job tomorrow morning does not work. We need to rally all Canadians, which is why I believe in the approach taken by the Minister of Environment, who quite rightly said we need to put a price on carbon while growing the economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been a very interesting day. The Conservatives constantly say that they want to know more about the numbers. The numbers they are asking for were created when they were in government. They want numbers that they would have had when they were in government. That tells me they did not read the information they were provided.

Today the minister provided another document, which was made available publicly back on April 1. Could my colleague comment on the shear nonsense of not enough information being there? It is there, if they are prepared to read it.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a document that lists all the information in response to the questions of the official opposition members. They should take the time to read it. It takes about five minutes. It outlines all the information they are looking for.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; and the hon. member for Calgary Shepard, Health.

Draft Appropriation Bill—Main Estimates, 2018-19

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to address the point of order that was raised earlier today by the member for Edmonton West. I understand that there have been a few interventions on this point so far today, so I am happy to make a contribution to that debate on the part of the NDP.

Earlier today, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader referred to a Standing Order that said that the appropriation bill had to be based on the estimates, and had quite a loose interpretation of what “based” meant.

There are a few other authorities I would like to cite to you, Mr. Speaker, to help you in your deliberations, which show that the relationship between the estimates document and the appropriation bill has to be much tighter than what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has suggested.

House of Commons Practice and Procedures, third edition, page 864, reads:

Each budgetary item, or vote, has two essential components: an amount of money and a destination...Should the government wish to change the approved amount or destination of a vote, it must do so either by way of a supplementary estimate or by way of new or amending legislation.

The “destination” is the wording of the vote.

That makes it very clear that there is a way the government can change the destination, or wording of a vote, but it is not to do it willy-nilly between when those estimates are reported back by committee and the introduction of the appropriation bill, that there is a separate process.

Page 865 of House of Commons Practice and Procedures, third edition, reads:

Estimates, outlines spending according to departments, agencies and programs and contains the proposed wording of the conditions governing spending which Parliament will be asked to approve. This information directly supports the schedule of the related appropriation act.

In this case, the schedule of the appropriation act and the wording specifically for Treasury Board Secretariat vote 40 is different than what was presented in the estimates. Therefore, that means committees did not have the opportunity to study that destination. Therefore, vote 40 in the appropriation act is out of order.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, of some of your own recent rulings that have emphasized the importance of the committee study process to the estimates. I quote from your May 29 ruling, where you say:

When the government presents estimates to the House, each vote contains an amount of money and a destination, which describes the purpose for which the money will be used. In some cases, the description is quite detailed and in other cases it can be rather general. That said, the estimates are referred to committee specifically to allow members to study them in further detail.

However, the wording of this vote was not referred to committee. It has been changed between reporting back from committee and the appropriation act.

I would also remind you, Mr. Speaker, of your ruling on June 11, where you say:

...it is up to the government to determine the form its request for funds will take. It is for members to decide, in studying and voting on the estimates, whether or not the money should be granted. In the case of vote 40, some members may wish that the request had been in a different form. In the end, they are left to make a decision on the request as the government has presented it.

The way the government presented that request to committee and the way that request was structured when it was studied was one thing. Now it is another thing in the appropriation act. While you have rightly said, Mr. Speaker, that the government has some latitude in determining the form that the request will take initially, that does not mean the government has freedom once it has decided on the form of that request and sent it to committee and they have been deemed reported back, that the government then has a wide-ranging prerogative to change the nature of that request for funding, which is what is happening currently in the appropriation bill as it is worded.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member. The information is duly noted and I am sure it will be part of the considerations.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Pricing

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

As always, it is an honour to rise in this place to represent my constituents.

This is an important topic. It is not a secret that the Liberal government believes strongly in its carbon tax. In fact, the Prime Minister has extended, some would say overextended, all of his political capital to create a national carbon tax for all of Canada, or almost all of Canada. One province has refused, another just rejected it, and possibly more will be rejecting it after upcoming elections.

That is ultimately the problem, because the whole theory to carbon tax is that when people become so financially crippled that they can no longer afford to buy gasoline, they will in turn use less of it. By extension, they will burn less carbon, and that will lower our greenhouse gas emissions.

Even where a carbon tax has existed the longest, which is in my home province of British Columbia, greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. Many say that means it is a failure. The elites and the experts will say it is failing only because the carbon tax is not nearly high enough.

The Prime Minister was quoted as saying that high gas prices “are exactly what we want”. He meant specifically to encourage people to financially suffer to the point where they can no longer afford to buy gasoline, and thus use less of it.

Here is the problem with that theory: democracy. I would submit to this place that when people are pushed to the brink of not being able to afford things like gasoline that they need in their everyday lives, and this applies to all of society, they will vote out the carbon tax.

This is a big part of what happened in the recent Ontario election. Gerald Butts' fingerprints are all over Ontario for driving up costs on everyday Canadians. It is not a secret that he is now following the same formula while running the federal Liberal government. Let us look at this motion as an example.

The entire premise for a carbon tax to work is that prices get so high people can no longer afford to use as much gasoline. The federal Liberal government has in its possession documents that clearly show how much the Department of Finance believes this national carbon tax will cost Canadian families. What does Gerald Butts do? He orders that this information be kept secret from the very Canadians who will be forced to pay it. Why is that? Let me ask the question another way.

When Canadians are told that the government is hiding information from them related to a tax that they are being forced to pay, what will they say in response? Every person in this room knows the answer to that question. They will say it enrages them, especially when it comes from a Prime Minister who had promised to be “Mr. Transparency”.

What was that quote again? Oh yes, “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. Where is the sunlight here? It seems to have gone the way of sunny ways.

Here is the other thing, though. It is not just everyday Canadians. Here is another example I will share from a different perspective. In 2008, at the time the B.C. carbon tax was first introduced, basically 100% of all cement used in British Columbia was manufactured in British Columbia. Why not? Concrete is not exactly a lightweight, inexpensive product to import and then transport to other jurisdictions.

What happened when B.C.-produced concrete became subject to a carbon tax in 2008? Well, naturally, it became more expensive. By 2014, B.C.-produced concrete only accounted for roughly 65% of all concrete used in British Columbia, because cheaper concrete was being imported from jurisdictions with no carbon tax. That is a 35% loss of market share in B.C.'s own market.

As a result of this, the B.C. government is now providing provincial subsidies to the B.C. concrete industry. There actually is a term for this now, and it is called carbon leakage.

Here is how carbon leakage is defined in the B.C. NDP 2018 budget document:

...industries that compete with industry in countries that may have low or no carbon price. If BC industry loses market share to more polluting competitors, known as carbon leakage, it affects our economy and does not reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

This is a flat-out admission that carbon taxes do not work because they create carbon leakage. Where do members think the term “carbon leakage” is found in the budget document? Subsidies and exemptions cost everyday taxpayers money.

Where is the carbon leakage exemption for the average hard-working Canadian family? We all know there is no carbon tax exemption or relief for anything. Heck, the current Liberal government will not even tell people how much it will cost them. This is why the member for Carleton has put this motion forward.

What is this Prime Minister afraid of? Is he afraid that if Canadians learn the true costs of his carbon tax, they might not vote for him in the next election? Is he worried his brand might take another hit at the polls? Surely, for a Liberal government whose number one favourite talking point is that the environment and the economy go hand in hand, one would think the Liberals would be proud to release the true costs of what they say will save the environment. This Prime Minister tells us that the carbon tax is necessary to save the environment, yet when we ask how much greenhouse-gas emissions will actually be reduced because of his carbon tax, he cannot say.

To recap, Canadians are basically being told that yes, the Liberals are making them pay a carbon tax; no, they will not tell them how much it will cost them, and no, they cannot tell them how much it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions either. Seriously, is it any wonder a growing number of Canadians are opposing and rejecting this carbon tax? Most of them have never even heard of carbon leakage or the fact that large-scale industrial greenhouse gas emitters are increasingly getting an exemption or a subsidy from the carbon tax while there is nothing for the average Canadian.

Fortunately, in this case we know that the Office of the Information Commissioner has now launched an investigation to determine why the data about the financial costs of a carbon tax per household are not being released to Canadians. We also know that this Prime Minister does not have a super-stellar record with independent officers of Parliament, typically because he believes he can do whatever he wants without consequence and regardless of the rules.

In this case, there is what is right and what is wrong. If the members of the current Liberal government believe strongly in their carbon tax, and I believe that many of them strongly do, then they should not be afraid to tell Canadians what the Department of Finance officials believe this carbon tax will cost them. That is the right thing to do. Sadly, all we know is that the government has once again whipped its members into doing precisely what Mr. Butts wants them to do, and that is to hide the cost of the carbon tax from Canadians.

I do not really believe members on the government side do not see the problem with hiding the most basic information from Canadians on a signature policy from this Prime Minister. We can only surmise that the information is being hidden because the Prime Minister has his own reasons to do so. I suppose if the current Liberal government wants to hide the true cost of its policies from Canadians who are left to pay the bills, so be it.

I disagree with that type of governance. I would encourage all members of this place to send a message to this Prime Minister and his inner circle, asking them to be that ray of sunshine, to serve as the disinfectant, to provide transparency, and to support this motion from the hon. member for Carleton.

These are important debates. Let us not shy away from sharing the information and then letting Canadians pick a side. When people are told what the situation is, given the information so they can digest it, and hear from both views, they are in the best position to make that choice. Every election cycle, we trust them to make the right choice. I believe the people are never wrong. What is wrong with letting the people of this House and of this country have that information, and letting them decide whom they want to believe and which policy is in our national interest?

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

Mr. Speaker, what we should not shy away from in this House is telling the people of Canada how we feel about climate change.

I have a simple two-part question for the member. First, how does he feel about climate change? Does he believe that it is actually happening? Is the planet getting warmer? Second, to what extent does human activity have to do with this phenomenon?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to answer this question.

First of all, I do not have feelings about climate change because, again, I believe science. If we look at the science and modelling, there are some inconsistencies, but I believe there is a broad consensus among scientists that 2°C of increased temperature across the globe may happen. We cannot say when, and we also cannot say that a particular event was or was not caused because of human activity. Again, our modelling does not allow that. However, I will say that we do understand human behaviour. We actually have a discipline called economics. We actually can tell what the average cost is of a tax, whether it be an income tax on an average family, whether it be a carbon tax. That information is available to the Department of Finance and to the Minister of Finance.

We actually have a redacted report showing that after the election the Liberals received that exact briefing, yet the information has been blacked out, making it difficult for members of Parliament like myself to be able to look constituents in the eye and tell them that we know what the implications of this tax are.

If we care about this country, then we should be able to trust the people on both sides of the aisle to have that information so we can debate on a level playing field, which I hope the member supports.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members that they can have notes and papers with them, but when they display them, they become props and that is frowned upon.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my friend from British Columbia.

He knows as well as I do that in the last five years we have had record forest fires raging through the province of British Columbia and through the province of Alberta. In my home community, we have had drought and flooding which is costing our communities significant amounts of money. The PBO is projecting that it is going to cost us $5 billion a year by 2020, and $90 billion by 2050, if we do not mitigate the impacts of climate change. This issue is real.

I did not hear my friend and colleague talk about solutions and ways forward in tackling climate change. We both come from British Columbia, where the provincial Liberal government under Gordon Campbell actually took leadership. It is one of the things that I will actually give them credit for. Back in 2008, the provincial government implemented their first carbon tax. That government was primarily federal Conservatives under a provincial banner. I am sure the member will agree with me on that. In fact, the Green-NDP coalition has just increased it by another $5. The carbon tax is at $35.

That is not what is causing the biggest impact on middle-class Canadians. I would say that people throughout British Columbia would like to see further action to address climate change because of these historic events that we have never seen before in terms of flooding and forest fires, and climate change.

Maybe the member could speak about solutions. What are the Conservatives proposing?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Conservatives are saying that if the government wants to tax, then it needs to give parliamentarians the information so we can debate it and let Canadians decide. That is number one. That is the main focus of today's debate.

Number two, the member may recall that I actually said that the B.C. NDP government in the 2018 budget actually referred to carbon leakage as being a concern. The pulp and paper mills in British Columbia are very carbon sensitive. Again, that increase from $30 to $35 is already having a remarkable impact on their ability to compete internationally. I believe that this will now be juxtaposed against extra subsidies to those industries. They are setting that context.

When it comes to climate change, there are a lot of other questions that we may have. John Tirole, who is a Nobel Prize economist, has said before that when a country such as Canada, or even a province such as British Columbia, puts a dollar of effort against climate change, but we only account for 2% of the total emissions around the world, that is like saying we will put in a dollar and two cents will go into a savings account to help fight it. What we are doing is we are actually paying the free-riders of countries that do not have those laws and regulations.

We need to have a discussion about how the world is working on this and, to tell the truth, the non-binding mandate of the Paris Agreement allows for countries to make pledges that they may not have any intention of meeting. There are a lot of things to unpack in that question. I would say, let us start in our legislative assemblies in the provinces and here in Parliament, and give parliamentarians the information, so that we can actually have the proper debate.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a principle that many of us abide by, certainly on this side of the aisle, and that is no taxation without representation. That is essentially the function of Parliament at this point in time. If we are going to tax the people we represent, then we are accountable to them for how we spend their money. We should be able to explain what sort of impact collecting revenue from them and then spending it will have on their lives.

The situation that is at the core of the motion today is that the government has implemented a very punitive tax on Canadians and is taxing them without information. We have taxation without information. Let me explain what I am talking about.

There was a departmental note entitled “Impact of a carbon price on households' consumption costs across the income distribution”. It was presented to the Liberal government after the election. The Conservative Party of Canada asked for a copy of the document, because ostensibly it is what the government's carbon tax is predicated on.

Again, the government made a decision to impose a tax on Canadians. This is the information it provided about what the cost would be to average households. As the opposition, we should be able to have that information so that we can represent our constituents and see whether this policy instrument will work and what the opportunity cost would be, the cost of taking that money from Canadians through the tax. What would be the return on investment for seeing the cost of goods increase?

I will post this document on my website or my Facebook page later today. When we got it, it was completely redacted. It essentially says, “The cost to Canadian households will be—” and then there is a giant redacted table. It is completely blacked out.

That is the core of the motion today. In order for the House to represent the people who gave us a mandate to be here, and in order to decide whether or not this tax is actually in the best interests of Canadians, we should know the modelling that the government used to determine whether the tax should be implemented now.

Based on what I have seen, external economists outside of the public service have certainly said that the carbon tax is going to raise the cost of goods and everything. Let us think about this. Canada is a very large country. It is geographically diverse. We have to travel long distances to get from one place to another. I am thinking about all the people in this place who have to commute from their ridings just to get to Parliament. Never mind the fact that we are agriculture-intensive and a large portion of our economy is based on natural resource extraction. What do all those things use as an input? They use carbon.

I could spend a whole day just talking about the impact on industry and the loss of jobs, but we can push that down to the household level. Because we have to fill up our cars, and because it is cold here and we have to heat our homes, that tax is going to increase the cost to the average Canadian household. Anyone here who has seen the price of gas these days and who makes that puckering sound or shivers when putting gas in the car understands that the carbon tax is impacting people.

One of my colleagues got up and waxed eloquent about economics, about supply and demand. He argued that if we put a tax on something, people's demand for it will decrease. What he was arguing was that the carbon tax the Liberals have put in place would actually decrease the demand of Canadians for things like gas, heating, and farm implements.

Here is the problem. The other piece of information the Liberals have that they will not release is the assumption about how much demand will decrease. They are not releasing how much this carbon tax would actually reduce demand. Therefore, we have a double problem here. Anyone who is making that cringing face when filling up the tank right now is still filling up the tank. Why is that? It is because we are in Canada. We have to drive to get to places.

The price the Liberals have put in place is not going to decrease the demand, but it is going to increase the cost of living for average Canadians. That is the reason why the government will not release this information. It does not want taxation with information. It does not want taxation with representation. Why? It is because the government has a dogmatic, almost religious, zealotry adherence to the carbon tax it has put in place.

Why is that? It is because its spending is so out of control and its deficit budget is so unimaginably high that it is looking at every possible option to squeeze average Canadians for its poor financial management. It is my job, and the job of everyone else sitting on this side of the House, to say, “No, it stops here.” We need this information. Canadians need this information. The government did not receive a mandate to be completely disrespectful of the hard-earned money that Canadians toil for every day.

We also understand that this information needs to be used to look at lower-income Canadians. We know that taxes like this have a disproportionately higher cost to people who are making less money. Because they have a lower income and still have the same input costs on things like transit passes, food, and driving, that tax has a higher impact on people like single moms and senior women. That is wrong. That is also our job here, and that is why we need this information. That is why we are prepared to make the government sit here for 24 hours over and over again until it allows taxation with information, not blocks of redacted information. That is ridiculous.

The Minister of Environment, the religious, dogmatic climate change spokesperson-in-chief in the House of Commons, stood up today and with great zeal said that she tabled a document on April 30 that shall set us free, except there is absolutely nothing in her document. Members can go on her website and look through it. There is nothing in there that speaks to the cost to Canadian households. Why? It is because this is how the Liberal government operates. It does not want Canadians looking at its books. Why is that? It is because it is a burning dumpster fire that is adding carbon to our environment.

Anybody who is filling up the tank right now understands what this carbon tax is going to do for people. If we are going to put a consumption tax that would increase the cost of everything to Canadians, one, it had better work, which it does not, and two, Canadians had better buy into it, which they do not. The other thing is that the government would have to account for the fact that it is going to have legal challenges from virtually every province in this country saying no. Every provincial government is going to stand in the way of this carbon tax. I am so pleased to see Ontarians, and soon Albertans, rejecting another barrier to doing business.

In closing, let us talk about trade. The government should have been making Canada more competitive, knowing the volatility of the American administration going into the NAFTA talks. What did it do? It put a cash grab in place, making it even more uncertain for investment, which means even more lost jobs.

I want that information. Every Canadian has a right to know what was in that document. Canadians have a right to know how much this tax is going to impact them. If we do not do that, if we do not have taxation with representation, then why do any of us have jobs? That government should not.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way should be aware that while she was in cabinet, the Conservatives actually had the information she is talking about. I do not know if they did not read it, or if they are intentionally trying to mislead the House. Then, we have a document that was tabled by the minister today, which was released well over a month ago. The information is there if they are prepared to look.

In regard to the specifics, 80%-plus of Canadians already pay a price on pollution. The Conservatives know that. The member used the example of those who use transit or those who are disadvantaged. A province can provide a subsidy. A good example is the Province of Manitoba, where the Conservative government cut back on Winnipeg transit transfer money. If that transit money is reinstated, the city would not have to increase the cost of fares. Keeping the fares down means that more people are able to afford them. It is up to the provinces. For many of the answers the members across the way want, they need to go to the provinces, maybe run as MLAs or MPPs, and they might be able to get those specific answers.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Conservative government did not impose a carbon tax, a tax on everything. In fact, it proudly stood against it. The leader of my party has stood up and said that a Conservative government does not want to raise taxes on Canadians; it wants them to have more money in their pockets so they can make choices. Government does not know best how to spend people's money; they do. That is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Let us talk about the Liberals' spending priorities. Every day, we walked by an $8-million hockey rink that was used for about four or five months. How many bus passes would that have paid for in Winnipeg? There were rubber ducks all over the place. There was $200 million spent to facilitate work permits for people illegally crossing the border from the U.S. into Canada. There was $1 million spent for office renovations. There were limo rides. Those are the priorities of the government, and when the Liberals talk about fiscal prudence, I feel like vomiting.

I am so excited for Canadians to reject this ideology and bring Canada back to balance and prosperity. We have had enough of these talking points and obfuscations.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing I am not hearing enough about today is the cost to taxpayers for natural disasters that are a result of climate change. We have seen record numbers of forest fires. We have seen floods like we have never seen before, which the PBO has projected will cost about $5 billion a year, or more, by 2020. There have been even worse years recently.

Municipalities are trying to brace themselves by building infrastructure or preparing for more forest fires coming down the pipe, but we are not hearing a sense of urgency from the Conservatives. We are not hearing how they are going to deal with these issues and protect middle-class Canadians. Of course, this tax, and being tax-prudent, is protecting taxpayers, because they are the ones who are going to pick up the tab for these disasters.

We have seen solutions. We have seen them in countries like Sweden, which has lowered emissions by 25% through carbon tax initiatives, and it has grown its GDP by 69%, all since 1990. We have gone in the other direction.

I would like to hear more about the answers and about tax prudence in terms of the impacts of climate change on taxpayers.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of the member for Foothills and my riding suffered a devastating flood in 2013 in Alberta. My colleague and I often talk about a simple question when this point comes up: How much tax does somebody in my colleague's riding have to pay for his riding not to flood again? The argument is that if Canadians pay a certain amount of tax, it is going to prevent a flood. That is completely ludicrous, especially when the tax is not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Instead of spending $8 million on a hockey rink and $200 million on work permits for illegal border crossers, the government should be trying to balance the budget and invest in flood mitigation infrastructure. Have we heard anything about that? No, we have not, because the infrastructure minister is focused on renovating his office, $1 million for that.

I cannot believe the argument that if something is taxed, it will prevent a forest fire. That is bananas. We need things that actually work, such as investments in infrastructure in the context of a balanced budget. I am done with this rhetoric.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise to speak to this motion. I am going to say many things that my colleagues from Alberta should hear because it is very important for them to be reminded where this idea of a carbon tax or carbon levy came from.

I am a proud Albertan for many reasons and counted among them is the fact that my province was the first Canadian jurisdiction, in fact the first jurisdiction in North America, to impose a levy on carbon emissions. Our colleagues in the Conservative Party, minus the Progressive Conservative aspect of it, seem to want to forget about that. In fact, my guess would be that not a single one of them mentioned that fact during the debate in this place on the carbon tax. In 2007, Premier Stelmach's Progressive Conservative Government of Alberta became the first in Canada, a North America jurisdiction, to legislate greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The specified gas emitters regulation imposed a carbon levy on large industrial emitters.

This came about because of the remarkable institution in Alberta called the Clean Air Strategic Alliance. It is a mechanism that I have long recommended should be duplicated at the federal level. It is a tripartite organization shared jointly by someone senior in industry, maybe a TransAlta, Suncor, or Syncrude vice-president, and by a deputy of energy or environment, and a senior environmentalist. It also includes indigenous peoples and farmers. On behalf of the Alberta government it takes on what should be done to reduce air emissions in our province. The alliance took on the coal-fired power industry and significantly reduced those emissions. It also took on the major emitters of greenhouse gases and as a result, the government very wisely issued these regulations.

Those regulations have since been replaced and I will talk about that in a minute, but under those regulations, an industry could choose to either reduce its emissions substantially or contribute to a research fund. That research fund was headed up by the former head of Syncrude Canada. It is considered a great model for investment in cleaner technology. A lot of the money went to try to clean up the fossil fuel industry, which some people might question, but it indeed does also need to clean up. A lot of that money also went into things like geothermal energy, renewable energy, using alternative energy in the fossil fuel industry, and reducing the energy used by the fossil fuel industry. It was remarkable.

We really need to honour Alberta for that because Alberta did that first. I find it really stunning in this place that every Conservative keeps standing up and ranting about the very measure that my Government of Alberta put in place.

A decade later, along came the government of Rachel Notley who put in place a very impressive climate action portfolio. She announced a new regime that includes the carbon competitiveness incentive regulations. Those have been in place since January of this year. They apply to facilities like the oil sands, cement plants, fertilizer producers that produce more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2003 or thereafter. The Notley government also imposed a cap on oil sands carbon emissions and it was great news for me because I volunteered for seven years to finally deal with the emissions from the coal-fired power sector.

Again, I am very proud of Alberta because it has moved forward. The federal government is still talking about it and the federal government acts as if it has done it, but in fact, it has done nothing to change the Harper era coal-fired power regulations.

All the Harper government did was to say that by 2050 the coal-fired power industry either has to shut down or deal with carbon emissions. That was the big push for carbon capture sequestration. Guess what? It is really expensive and with the big push for that, in the end, the industry did not want to pay for it and the public is not happy about subsidizing it. At the big international conferences there are people trying to sell this, but it just did not work in Alberta.

The reason this industry was not shut down earlier in Alberta was that the government refused to look at the health impacts of that sector. I tried really hard to get the federal and provincial governments to speak to it. I eventually had to intervene on my own with a lifelong friend who is a family doctor and who had documented in the Lake Wabamun area, where most of the coal-fired power industry is, the higher rates of multiple sclerosis and other diseases related to neurological disease. As a result of his and my intervening, and our having brought in an American expert from the eastern coast, the government finally put in place the only mercury control regulations in this country for coal-fired power.

Bit by bit, the Government of Alberta was doing good work. Along came the Rachel Notley government and Dr. Joe Vipond, who is a Calgary physician. He started gathering information from the Canadian Medical Association to determine an absolutely huge number of serious illnesses and deaths related to coal-fired power in my province. As a result of that data and as a result of costing those injuries, health impacts, and deaths, a lot of the issues having to do with asthma, lung disease, and heart disease, the government decided that it would move forward the date for the shutdown of coal power in Alberta. Therefore, by 2030 the coal power industry will be gone in Alberta.

Those are great measures by the Government of Alberta, which were initially started by Premier Stelmach, a Progressive Conservative. These regulations replace the specified gas emitters regulation.

I want to share with members the voice of one of my neighbours, who is a remarkable man. He travels around the world and advises China and Bhutan; he goes everywhere. He is an environmental economist. Mark Anielski has reminded us that the health care costs associated with climate change are “in the order of $300 million per year, along with other impacts of pollution”, and it is what he dubs an “unfunded liability”. He estimates this overall liability is worth “about $13.7 billion if you value carbon at $50 a ton which is what Shell and other companies shadow price carbon at”. He added, “This is in the spirit of taxing the bads and not the goods” and “everyone requires a share of responsibility...paying for that liability. But the tax really is an incentive to change our behaviour to be more efficient.”

I heard my colleague from Calgary rant about what the gas tax will do to address and stop the floods and terrible fires that have blighted British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. That is not the point. The point is we need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels so that we do not have more catastrophic floods and fires. We have been fortunate in Canada because we are not seeing the brunt of it that the rest of the world is already seeing. We need to understand that putting in place a carbon tax is meant as a preventive measure, not an after-the-fact enforcement measure. It is meant to trigger a different behaviour.

The Alberta regime is forecasting $5.8 billion over a three-year period from the carbon levy on large industrial emitters. We need to also recognize that the regimes put in place in each province are going to be different. My province is blessed with, although some people say it is cursed with, major emitters. We have the major oil and gas sector. What that means is if we impose a tax, we are going to generate a lot of revenue. We also have been blessed with having a good number of people earning a good income that is higher than in a lot of places in the country. Therefore, we are going to garner a higher tax revenue. However, most of that tax will be from the purchase and burning of fossil fuels in our homes, in small businesses, and our vehicles.

What will happen with that revenue? Unlike what British Columbia originally did, where it simply returned that tax money, I am glad that Alberta has taken a different direction. My understanding is that under the new B.C. government, it has also shifted over what it is doing with that revenue.

Two-thirds of that revenue is going to be reinvested in the Alberta economy: $1.3 billion in green infrastructure and $300 million in phasing out coal power. The government, in its wisdom, decided to buy out some of the coal industry because, foolishly, previous governments had allowed the coal power industry to expand at a moment in time when we should have known it was going to be phasing out. It has agreed to pay out some of those operations and the power purchase agreements. There will be $600 million going to energy efficiency for homes and businesses, and $1 billion will be going to support the coal communities that have housed the workers who have worked in the coal mines and the coal-fired power plants. That is a good initiative. It will also go into renewable energy investments, and innovation and technology.

I would add here that the Rachel Notley government has also put $50 million toward the retraining of workers in the coal-fired power and mining industries, and persuaded the federal government finally to extend EI. Where is the money from the federal government to match that? We hear a lot of talk, and there is yet another advisory committee.

We hear pleas from members of the Conservative Party about what the carbon tax is going to do for them. What Canadians are looking for is what is being done to help communities and workers who feel they are suffering directly because of the shift to a clean energy economy.

One-third is going to helping households, businesses, and communities directly. Some $500 million is going to small business tax cuts. Some $1.5 billion is going to low- and middle-income households. There is $1.5 billion in assistance for indigenous communities. It would be nice if the federal government would match that. The effect will be that the average natural gas bill is to rise by approximately $5 a month, and that is before the 2018 rebates. The majority of the gas bill costs remain in delivery, administration, and fixed costs because of the Ralph Klein deregulated system, which the Notley government is also trying to deal with. Two-thirds of Albertans are to receive a rebate.

The projected costs are actually posted on the Alberta website. Any members in this place who are concerned about their constituents can go to the Alberta government website and find out what the carbon tax will be.

As long as Alberta's carbon tax remains in place, we in Alberta will not be subject to the federal tax regime. The government has been very clear on that. Of course, all provinces and territories have the option to implement their own choice of cost regime: cap and trade, carbon tax, or anything else that they can invent.

However, a tax alone will not cut it. Broader federal action is needed if we are to deliver on our Paris commitments. Who said that? Many, including the federal commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, who continues to raise concerns that we are failing to deliver on our commitments in meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets. Deeper actions are needed, including on climate adaptation. That was in a very recent report by the commissioner. Of course, the government thanked the commissioner for the report, but where is the action?

I have great admiration for the Pembina Institute. The institute and others have said that the political will still appears to be high in the Liberal government. At least they voice support for it, but so is the greenhouse gas inventory high, and it is rising. The government cannot keep adjusting the timelines forward. Now it is saying it cannot possibly meet the 2020 target, so let us try for the 2030 target. The commissioner has spoken out loudly against that. She said that the government has to stop just moving the targets forward and it has to start taking action. Of course, we are already not going to meet the 2020 Copenhagen accord target. Apparently, we are also slated to fail to deliver on our Paris commitments for 2030. That is less than 15 years away. That means we have to be taking a lot of action right now.

Close to 50% of emissions come from two sectors: oil and gas and transportation. We should also take care in the conversion from coal to gas. Burning fossil fuels will remain a health threat. There should be clear timelines for shifting to renewables. I am deeply concerned, and most Canadians are probably not aware that the standards the government is about to impose for a coal plant shifting to gas are not as strict as they are for building a new gas-fired plant. That is unforgivable. That is unforgivable for regions like mine in the Lake Wabamun-Genesee area that is almost the entirety of the supply of electricity in my province. Switching to gas is still going to provide a lot of pollution and we will have a lot of health impacts, and therefore a lot of costs to the public coffers.

The reductions in the building sector have also remained stagnant. We need to move forward on changes to the national building code so that new housing stock is energy efficient. All federal dollars for indigenous housing, schools, and facilities should require energy efficiency standards for sustainability and major cost savings to the communities.

We absolutely need the federal government to deliver the promised dollars to get isolated northern communities off diesel. We can look at the budgets over the last three years that the Liberals have put forward, and I have memorized page 149 and 150 of the 2017-18 budget. All I saw were zeroes for moving reliance of rural and remote communities off diesel: budget 2016-17, zero dollars; 2017-18, zero dollars; and 2018-19, nearly $40 million.

We know how many first nations communities there are, and we know what the costs will be in some of those isolated communities, particularly in the high north. Come on, get with it. Let us move that spending forward.

Supposedly the nation-to-nation relationship is the most important, and we recognize that those communities are struggling. We hear story after story of first nations that are fed up with waiting for government to help them, and they are moving forward themselves with groups like Iron & Earth.

For example, Iron & Earth is partnering with first nations in a community in the Maskwacis in Alberta teaching the local indigenous people how to install solar, and then installing solar. Why are we not doing that right across our country? I do not understand what the delay is.

We talked about skills development in the New Democrats opposition day. In the pan-Canadian program, supposedly for all the jurisdictions to work together to address climate change, what is missing? It is investment in skills development. Even when we put those questions to the government the other day, the answer back is always exactly the same: “Well, we're supporting clean technology”. However, who is going to work for the clean technology firms?

There should be massive amounts of money flowing right now into every technical school in Canada. I sat down the other day in my constituency and started listing all the technical schools across this country that deliver renewable energy training. It is unbelievable. It is almost every community college. Certainly the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology in my city has a fantastic program, but it is oversubscribed. Young people are dying to learn these skills. Who is dying to learn it the most? It is our boilermakers, steelworkers, and electricians. They are begging to get into this field. They are saying that they may still work in the fossil fuel industry, but they want to transition over. There is no reason why, when there is a downturn in the oil and gas sector, they could not slide over and work in the renewable sector.

Kudos to Iron & Earth, which started as a small group of men and women who worked in the oil sands. It has now spread right across the country. There is testimony after testimony. I encourage members to go to the Iron & Earth website and look at the testimonials from men and women working in those sectors, and how badly they want to get into this sector.

We heard all the promises from the Conservatives when they were in power. They were in power for 10 years, and they never issued those promised oil and gas regulations. So much for their actions on climate change. They never joined IRENA. Finally, three years later, kudos to the Liberals for finally discovering this international agency for renewable energy and joining it. However, I do not know what they can bring to it. I think they need to start investing and showing that we are actually taking action.

I will close with my former colleague, Paul Dewar, who is kick-starting an initiative next week for youth. I have been working closely with a fabulous group called the 3% Project. Two young people have travelled right across the country visiting just about every high school and every university, including in this city. Their objective of 3% is to reach one million young people in Canada. They want them to learn about the need for action on climate change and sustainability, and to take on a project. It is absolutely inspiring. I encourage everyone to look into 3% Project. That is our future, and I know that they believe we should take action and will not listen to the naysaying from this motion, which we will clearly vote against.