Debates of Jan. 28th, 2019

Federal Sustainable Development Act

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

Madam Speaker, one of the primary responsibilities we have in this place is to be wise stewards of taxpayer dollars.

Unfortunately, that principle is sometimes lost on parties that are to the left of the Conservative Party of Canada. When we are in a deficit situation, we should be looking at ways to return the budget back to balance. This is something the Liberal government has no intention of doing. That is quite clear at this point in time.

When we look at the record, the words that I twigged into with my colleague's question were doing things to help Canadian families make ends meet. I look at some of the things that none of the other parties in this place support, like common sense tax initiatives like income-splitting, that allowed people to value the labour of people who might have lower income in a relationship.

I think about all of those measures that many Canadians used to get by that were cancelled, that were not supported by any other party in this place. I will give the member's party credit. I think her former leader probably would have governed to the right of the Prime Minister. However, that said, nobody else here ever talks about balanced budgets or deficit. To me, that is walking away from the principle that we have for managing taxpayer dollars efficiently and effectively.

Sometimes we have to talk about the fact that we have to live within our means, even in government. I am very proud to say that our government left Canadians with a balanced budget, the lowest federal tax burden in over 50 years, and that is a good thing.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, we keep hearing that the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to put a price on pollution, what I like to call the Liberal carbon tax.

A two-year study in Quebec on the carbon exchange found that pricing pollution did not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in any way. In fact, a slight increase was observed.

I would like to hear the hon. member's thoughts on the fact that the Liberals want to tax people when the Quebec experience shows that the outcome is completely uncertain.

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

Madam Speaker, the reality is that carbon in Canada is a good that is relatively inelastic. There is not a lot of substitute goods for it. Therefore, when the price of carbon is increased, we will not see a lot of behaviour changed, but we will see a restriction or a constriction on economic growth, as well as the ability of Canadians to make ends meet.

That is why this will not work, the $40 price on carbon. One of my colleagues from Quebec boldly said that they really wanted to increase this tax. The government has not been able to show at what price behaviour would change in Canada and it has not been able to show when the carbon tax it has introduced would actually meet the emissions targets.

That is why the carbon tax is such a fallacy and it is something the Liberal government should be walking away from.

Access to Information

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington on December 11, 2018, with respect to an answer to an Order Paper question.

In his argument, the hon. opposition member argued that the government's response to Question No. 2001 was not a response and as such breached his capability to access information.

Question No. 2001 asked:

With regard to the government’s decision not to provide costs associated with legal assistance to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman: (a) who made the decision to deny legal assistance costs; (b) was the decision in (a) supported by the Minister of National Defence; (c) on what date was the decision in (a) made; and (d) which Ministers, exempt staff, or other government employees have or will receive taxpayer-funded legal assistance in relation to the case?

As mentioned by the hon. member, the response tabled stated:

With respect to legal assistance provide to specific individuals, a response could disclose personal and solicitor-client privileged information. Therefore the Government must respectfully decline to respond.

If we look at page 511 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, we will find the following quote:

....if a question to a Minister touches upon a matter that is sub judice, it is likely that the Minister will have more information than the Speaker concerning the matter and can determine whether answering the question may cause prejudice. The Minister may refuse to answer the question, as is his or her prerogative.

Consequently, Madam Speaker, I believe you will find that the response to the hon. member is perfectly acceptable, considering the circumstances surrounding Question No. 2001. As such, I respectfully submit that this is a question of debate and as such does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I thank the member for the additional information that has been provided. We will take it under consideration and get back to the House with the decision.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

Federal Sustainable Development Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak, whether in the chamber of our traditional House of Commons or the new chamber we are debating in today for the first time. When answering his first question, the Prime Minister commended all the individuals involved in making this transition possible and recognized the fine work and efforts that so many people have put in to realize the day that is finally upon us.

Having said that, I have listened to a few interesting speeches over the last number of hours on what is a very important principled piece of legislation. I would really encourage members of the Conservatives, as well as my New Democrat friends, to try to get a better understanding of what this legislation is all about. I have heard a wide range of debate. I will try to address the many different issues raised during the debate, but it covered a lot of territory, from taxation policy to immigration policy. There was a bit of stuff on the environment, as well as other issues.

I want to start by trying to express what many viewers might have been confused about with the previous speaker on what I believe is a very important issue, which is sustainability and the whole idea that when we move forward we need to look at sustainable development and establish those goals and objectives. When legislation empowers the right approach by the different stakeholders, the many different federal agencies that will all fall under this legislation, we need to recognize it as a positive piece of legislation, not only for the environment but also for Canada's economy.

I heard a great deal about Canada's economy and how it is performing. The Conservative opposition tries to give what I would argue is a false impression, as if the Canadian economy is not doing well. In fact, the numbers do not lie. The numbers are very much favourable over the last few years. We have seen progressive legislation brought in by this government. Some ideas have been generated from stakeholders, Paris and right through all regions of our country that understand the importance of the environment. We have been able to encapsulate the ideas that will push our economy forward, while at the same time recognize the importance of our environment.

I would suggest that the principle of working the environment and economy together is something this government understands. That is where I would like to start my comments on this legislation. We have the Conservatives, who are the official opposition, who tend to want to forget about the environment. They try to give the impression that the Harper government truly cared about the environment and had economic, legislative or budgetary policies to protect Canada's environment. In fact, not only did the former prime minister fail to meet the standards and expectations of Canadians with respect to the environment, the Conservatives did a poor job on the economy too.

When listening to the Conservatives talk about this legislation, whether today or back in November or December, one would think there has been no change and that Stephen Harper is still the leader of the Conservative opposition party.

It is interesting. Is it Stephen Harper? Some have made the suggestion today that it sounded more like Doug Ford was running the Conservative Party. Who is running the Conservative Party today? Is it Doug Ford? Is it Stephen Harper? Maybe it is Jason Kenney out in Alberta. Who is running the Conservative Party? When it comes to our environment, it is really difficult to tell.

The Conservative Party really has no plan. In one of the questions today, the Prime Minister said something like it has been 270 days and we are still waiting for that plan. Canadians deserve to see a plan. The Conservative Party has no plan.

I am going to talk about the Liberal plan very shortly, but before I do that, let me talk about my New Democrat friends. On the one hand, the Conservatives are very much focused on the economy. The environment really does not matter to them and they do not have a plan when it comes to the environment. My New Democrat friends, on the other hand, have a multitude of plans dealing with the environment. Everything is about the environment. Some would think they are trying to out-green the Green Party on environmental policies. They forget about the economy. It is hard to understand what the NDP's position is. After all, we have Jagmeet Singh saying one thing, while another prominent New Democrat is saying another thing. We have the NDP here in Ottawa saying one thing, while the NDP provincial governments are saying something completely different.

What about the LNG project? It is a multi-billion dollar project. Every Canadian in every region is directly or indirectly going to benefit from the LNG investment. Every Canadian will derive some direct or indirect benefit from this multi-billion dollar investment. The New Democrat government in British Columbia and the government here in Ottawa have recognized the value of that development. However, now we have Svend Robinson, the prominent New Democrat who wants to be back inside the House, saying that it is a bad idea, and even going further in terms of wanting to shut down any sort of development of our natural resources.

The NDP here in Ottawa is saying that pipelines and the exportation of oil is a bad thing. If we listen to New Democrats speak in the House, we hear that they do not want to see any new pipelines at all. That seems to be their line, yet the NDP government in Alberta is begging and pleading that we recognize the importance of the oil industry for all Canadians.

On the one hand we have the New Democrats, who are all over the place on the issue of the environment, with a multitude of different plans, but who are not listening and being sensitive to the needs of Canada's economy. Then we have the Conservatives on the other hand, who do not have the sensitivity and do not recognize the need to work with the many different stakeholders to consider the environment when developing our natural resources or commodities.

Let us use a very specific example. Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, was prime minister for 10 years. How many pipelines did Stephen Harper actually construct or provide with the opportunity that would see those pipelines move forward, which would have taken our resources to Asian markets, to the coastline? The answer is zero, not one. There was not one inch of pipeline from the Conservative Party.

If we listen to the Alberta members of Parliament, we would think they were building four or five pipelines a year, as if they truly cared about them. However, for the 10 years they were in government, they did not build one inch of pipeline. Within months of this government taking office, it put into place—

[An hon. member]

That's not true.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That is the truth. If we look at the first few months of this government, after being elected in 2015, we started to put into place a process that respected the environment, that ensured indigenous people would have a voice, that there would be a process that would allow for the expansion of getting our resources to market. The Conservative Harper government failed at doing this.

Why should we listen to the Conservatives when it comes to a pipeline when they failed so miserably on it? We do not need to be lectured by the Conservative members about the jobs in the province of Alberta. This is a government that cares about what is happening in all regions of our country, including my home province of Manitoba, the province of Alberta, the province of Quebec and all the different provinces in Atlantic Canada. We are concerned about all provinces and territories. We encourage economic growth wherever we can. We have been very successful.

Stephen Harper was the prime minister for 10 years and his government created somewhere in the neighbourhood of just over a million jobs. In the last three years and a few months, in working with small businesses and Canadians in all regions of the country, we have seen 800,000-plus new jobs created in Canada. In good part it has a lot to do with the budgetary announcements we have brought forward.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan talked about the issue of taxation and how it had an impact on sustainability in Canada, referring to the Canadian economy. This government has done more to cultivate and encourage the growth of our economy. From day one, we have been a government focused on Canada's middle class and have taken policy initiatives that would enhance and give strength to the middle class. We understand and appreciate that the stronger and healthier Canada's middle class is, the healthier our economy will be, not to mention the many different social aspects.

The previous speaker talked about waste, the environment and how in Montreal a considerable amount of waste unfortunately had to be dumped into the St. Lawrence. There is a reason why it had to be dumped. Before I go into that reason, let me assure the members opposite that it is not the first time waste has been dropped into a waterway. Even under Stephen Harper, it was dropped into the waterways. What did Stephen Harper do to deal with that issue? It was unlike this government that has invested and made commitments of billions of dollars to build Canada's infrastructure.

By building our infrastructure, we are going to be in a better position in the future to prevent the dumping of sewage in any form into our waterways. That is a very difficult decision. However, to try to give an impression that this government caused it is somewhat disingenuous and misleading.

For the first time, we have a government in Canada that is committed to building the infrastructure of our country and recognizing that if we want to have sustainable development in the future, a part of that sustainable development is investing in our communities, our capital infrastructure. In the last few years, this government has invested millions of dollars in water treatment centres in different areas of our great nation, so not only do we talk about it, but this government has taken specific actions. Many of those actions can be found in the budgets that have been presented by the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Government of Canada.

Other initiatives like the one we are talking about today are brought in through ministers to make changes to legislation. The process in bringing in this legislation has involved a great deal of background work and consultation, from consultation the minister's staff conducted prior to introduction and first reading, to the debate process, to the committee proceedings and to third reading. Ultimately it went to the Senate, where we received more feedback, which some of my colleagues have commented on.

The legislation before us today is very positive. It is something all members should reflect on and support. Federal sustainable development strategy, objectives and reports are all positive things. Canadians expect government to look at ways in which we can encourage sustainable development in the future.

The legislation we are debating today is part of what we talked about in the last federal election. This is yet another piece of legislation that fulfills a commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians and that the Liberal Party made to Canadians.

We recognize that there is always room to improve and ways in which we can do better. I want to pay attention to this issue, because the Conservatives in particular have raised the issue of the price on pollution. We have had so much direction not only from within Canada, but outside as well. Countries around the world have recognized the importance of assigning a price on carbon.

The first jurisdiction in Canada to move forward on this issue was in Alberta. It was the Progressive Conservative Party that moved in this direction. However, the Conservative Party in Ottawa still does not understand it. This is where the current leader falls behind Stephen Harper. Some of the people Stephen Harper had around him recognized the value of having a price on pollution, but not the current Conservative Party.

Patrick Brown was another individual who talked about the price on carbon. I am sure my colleagues remember that individual, who was a part of the Stephen Harper government. Even though the Conservative Party associates so closely with Stephen Harper and Doug Ford, it is reminiscent of the Conservative-Reform days. Maybe that is the direction they are trying to go.

I look forward to 2019 when we are going to be able to tell Canadians all the wonderful progressive measures that we have taken, everything from tax breaks to protecting our environment to enhancing social programs. There is so much more we would like to be able to do and maybe Canadians will allow us to continue.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed that member's speech, as humorous as it was.

In the Federal Sustainable Development Act there is a provision that deals with intergenerational equity, which effectively says the current generation will not steal from future generations. The current generation will not impose a burden on future generations in order to meet its present-day needs. Presumably by supporting this particular piece of legislation and the underlying legislation, that member supports intergenerational equity, yet his government is doing the very opposite, running huge deficits when it promised to run small deficits.

The Liberal government failed to deliver a balanced budget this year, in 2019, despite the Prime Minister's solemn promise. He is on record as saying he would balance the budget by 2019. He never did it. When the budget is not balanced and huge deficits are run, there will be huge debts in the future that future generations will have to pay as well as all of the interest on it that future generations will have to pay. The current generation is stealing from the future generation. How is that intergenerational equity?

How does the member square his government's appalling performance on the economy and on debt?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize that the Conservative government allowed for a huge infrastructure deficit and we need to look at the reality of the cost of that infrastructure deficit. As a result of the Harper government choosing not to invest in Canada's infrastructure, there are going to be long-term cost ramifications for future generations. That is one of the reasons why our government, months into taking office, made a commitment to Canada's infrastructure. We can go beyond that and talk about some of the social infrastructures, programs in particular.

While the Conservatives would give cheques to millionaires for their children, our Canada child benefit is giving millions of dollars to Canadians. In my riding of Winnipeg North alone, it is like $9 million a month to families that really need it. They are spending that money, which improves their disposable income.

I can justify the expenditures of this government. What I cannot justify is the lack of commitment that the Harper government had towards our infrastructure and that is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very long and very loud speech. He touched on a number of things but two of the most important to Canadians are the economy and the environment.

We all just returned from break and I want to share some of the feedback that I received from my constituents. I think many other members in the chamber have heard the same thing and some alarming facts.

Just last week it was reported that 46% of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency. That does not sound like an economy that is working well for a lot of people. My hon. colleague talked about the middle class. I have not ever heard the Liberals talk about the working class. There are millions of Canadians in this country that are not doing well.

The member quoted the same figures that the Conservatives used to quote, those large macro numbers about how well Canada is doing compared to the G7. It reminds me of the phrase that when Bill Gates walks into a bar everybody is a millionaire, on average. That is not the reality here in this country. There are gaping holes between the wealthy and the poor and between the working class in this country.

I want for a moment to turn to the issue of the environment. Nobody is opposed to natural resources or the oil industry. People are concerned about climate change and carbon emissions. With the alarming report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change telling us we have 11 years to make a 45% reduction over 2010 levels, we do not have time to waste. Expanding fossil fuel infrastructure at a time when we have to be reducing carbon emissions is something that many Canadians, me included, have a hard time understanding.

What does my hon. colleague have to say to those almost one in two Canadians who are $200 away from going bankrupt? What does he have to say to the younger generation that is concerned about—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

In short, Mr. Speaker, I would say they have a government that is listening to what Canadians are saying.

The Prime Minister has mandated and constantly reminded members, at least on this side of the House—and we would encourage all members to do what the member said he did—to work with constituents to get a better sense of what their constituents expect from Ottawa and then bring that information to Ottawa. When that has happened, at least on the Liberal benches we have seen the development and enhancement of programs that have made a difference.

How can the member not recognize that the Canada child benefit program has lifted literally hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty? How can the member not recognize that the enhancement to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors has lifted literally thousands of people out of poverty, including the poorest seniors? As I alluded to a few minutes ago, Winnipeg North gets approximately $9 million every month because of the children who live there, and that money enhances their living. This is a government that truly cares, and that is why we are developing positive, progressive social policies.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much support my colleague's remarks.

We have heard a lot about deficits and we cannot forget that in nine years, Stephen Harper added $160 billion to Canada's debt when we had the lowest growth since the 1930s, and in addition to that deficit, he left a huge infrastructure deficit, as my colleague mentioned. As the minister announced today in question period, there are over 4,000 infrastructure projects under way in this country. My riding happens to have two of them, in waste-water treatment, one just completed and the other under way, worth $2 million. It is allowing businesses like Danby and Weston to grow and expand and allowing rural communities to grow.

I would like the member to respond to the infrastructure deficit and the opportunities that we are providing communities by answering that deficit.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend is right on with regard to the importance of infrastructure, and she cited some very specific files within her own riding. Infrastructure has been enhanced in all regions of our country, again because this government, even going into the election, recognized the serious infrastructure deficit that Canada is facing, primarily as a direct result of the policies of Stephen Harper. That is why we had to make the types of investment and commitment that we made. If we invest in infrastructure and in Canadians, we will have a much healthier environment for all.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with what the member opposite said about seniors. Yes, Liberals increased something, but they took a lot away from them. Seniors no longer have a tax credit to take buses. Also, the carbon tax increases the cost of their groceries, heating, everything.

When I visited a seniors home last week, a very important thing they told me is that their grandkids and kids are going to suffer because the government is going to make them pay for all the debt and mistakes the Liberal government has made.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few quick points. First and foremost, I recognize that it was this government, within months of being in government, that dramatically increased the guaranteed income supplement, lifting tens of thousands of the poorest seniors in all regions of Canada out of poverty. It was this government, within months, that reversed the Harper decision and returned the age of retirement from 67 to 65. Independent reports commented on how many seniors would have been put in poverty had we not made that change. We could talk about the CPP agreement between Ottawa and the provinces, ensuring that future seniors will have better retirements.

This government has done so much, and we will continue to look at ways to improve the quality of life for seniors. After all, this is the Prime Minister who appointed the first Minister of Seniors.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed listening to the speech of the member for Winnipeg North. It was all about spending, and the Liberals talk about that a lot. They spend, spend, spend. There was nothing about fiscal control. There was nothing about economic sustainability, being able to afford the things we paid for. There was nothing about reducing the tax burden on Canadians.

Therefore, it is a real pleasure to talk about the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the amendments that have been proposed. When we actually compare the provisions of the act and what the act requires against the performance of the Liberal government, we will find that this tax-and-spend Liberal government has been found wanting.

The underlying purpose of the act is to find the appropriate balance between our natural environment, our social environment and economic environment. Unfortunately, the current Liberal government does not understand where that balance should lie. In fact, if the Liberals went to section 5(b) of the act, they would find that there is a notion of intergenerational equity that requires current governments to take into account the welfare of future generations. Intergenerational equity, one of the key principles of the act, requires governments not to steal from future generations to pay for their current needs or demands.

However, when we look at the performance of the Liberal government, what does it do? It praises the Federal Sustainable Development Act, but then it incurs huge deficits when it promised not to.

I remember the last election when the Prime Minister went across the country saying he was going to run small deficits of $10 billion. By the way, he went on to promise he was going to balance the budget by 2019, which happens to be this year. However, we know that today, in 2019, there is no balanced budget and we know that it is going to take over 20 years to balance our budget based on the direction the government is going. That does not take into account additional spending that the Liberal government is going to undertake during the election year.

What happens? There is no intergenerational equity. What the Prime Minister is asking us to do is to pay for his mistakes.

Then we have a Liberal government that is hell-bent on phasing-out Canada's oil and gas industry. The Prime Minister has deliberately wiped out projects like the northern gateway pipeline and the energy east pipeline. He has imposed additional regulatory burdens, upstream and downstream impact requirements with which foreign oil does not have to comply. Therefore, these investments are fleeing the country. Over $100 billion of investment has fled our country over the last couple of years. Again, the Prime Minister is asking us to pay for his mistakes.

We remember the small business fiasco. We are talking about economic sustainability, social and environmental sustainability. Let us talk about small businesses. It was the Liberal government that introduced a policy that was going to harm small businesses by increasing the tax rate on those businesses to 73%. There was no apology in the House for suggesting that was what small businesses could bear. In fact, it got so bad that the Prime Minister referred to our small business sector as tax cheats. We have one million small businesses across the country and all the Prime Minister could do was to call them tax cheats. I have spoken to hundreds of them and they are angry at a prime minister who is asking them to pay for his mistakes.

I will talk a little about trade policy, because trade policy is about sustainability. It is about providing an environment in which Canadian companies can thrive within the global marketplace.

When our Conservative government finally left office in 2015, we turned over the reins to the Liberal government. At that time, Canada had strong diplomatic and trade relationships around the world.

As trade minister, I could pick up the phone and call my counterpart in pretty well any country to say we have a problem and ask if we could sit down and fix it. We could have that discussion. What does that look like today? Today, we have a trade agenda wasteland. Our diplomatic relationships around the world are in tatters. When did it start? Let us talk about it.

In Vietnam, where the Trans-Pacific Partnership was supposed to be signed, 12 countries agreed to expand trade. Eleven countries showed up in Vietnam. Everybody promised they were going to sign that agreement there. Who did not show up? There were two chairs that were empty at that meeting. Canada's trade minister did not show up. Canada's Prime Minister did not show up. What an embarrassment. Can the Prime Minister go back to Vietnam? It would be very difficult. It does not want him back there. None of the partners in the TPP want him back.

Then we see the Prime Minister travelling to China. He was going to start trade negotiations with China. Do members remember that? Unfortunately for Canada, the Prime Minister went there with a bunch of preconditions that had nothing to do with trade and told China that it was going to have to comply with these preconditions, otherwise we were not interested. China was very upset. It basically gave him a swift kick in the rear and sent him packing with his tail between his legs. What an embarrassment that was.

It did not stop there. Let us remember when he travelled to the Philippines. Canada is not a member of the East Asia Summit. The East Asia Summit was taking place in the Philippines. Our government asked to be invited, so the Prime Minister got an invitation from the President of the Philippines. He arrived on the ground there and the first thing our Prime Minister did was embarrass the Philippine president in his own country. Rather than using traditional diplomacy to raise the very serious issue of human rights, he embarrassed the president of that country in front of his own people. Do members think he is welcome in the Philippines now? That diplomatic relationship was torn asunder.

It goes on. Do members remember the Twitter diplomacy that founded our relationship with Saudi Arabia? At that time, we had tens of thousands of Saudi Arabian students studying in Canada, many of them for four and five years. While they lived here, what did they do? They would pick up many of the principles of freedom, democracy and human rights. When those students would go back to Saudi Arabia, many of them became great proponents and champions of human rights, democracy and freedom.

The Prime Minister thought it was a great idea to attack Saudi Arabia on its human rights record, and it does have a shabby human rights record, but he chose Twitter to do it, unlike our previous government, which used traditional diplomacy and tact in doing it. That relationship was torn asunder. It is costing our economy billions of dollars a year in lost revenue. The current Prime Minister wants to make you, Mr. Speaker, and all of the other Canadians across this country, pay for those mistakes.

It got worse. Do members remember the NAFTA negotiations? The Prime Minister embraced Donald Trump's offer of renegotiating NAFTA when in fact Donald Trump's ire was directed at Mexico, not Canada. Then the Prime Minister had the audacity to promise Canadians that when he was done renegotiating NAFTA we would have a better deal than we had before. What happened? The Prime Minister totally failed us. All the experts now acknowledge that the NAFTA deal that we have today is a much lesser deal than we had before the Prime Minister got started.

It is another failure, another mistake the Prime Minister wants us to pay for. The sad thing is this. The Prime Minister had an opportunity to address the steel and aluminum tariffs that Donald Trump had imposed on Canada through these negotiations on NAFTA. Do members think he got that done? No. Those tariffs are still in place, costing Canadians hundreds of millions and perhaps billions of dollars a year.

Was the softwood lumber agreement resolved in those NAFTA negotiations? The Prime Minister had that opportunity. It never got done. It was a failure, a mistake the Prime Minister wants Canadians to pay for. What a shame.

Let me return to China. We have seen the China relationship deteriorate to the point that it is the worst it has ever been over the last 40 years. We have a Prime Minister who cannot manage this relationship. He sends his own friend, John McCallum, to be the ambassador there, and then Mr. McCallum embarrasses Canadians by interfering in what should be an arm's-length legal extradition process for Meng Wanzhou, a Huawei executive. Our ambassador in China undermined the rule of law in Canada and undermined our ability to defend that rule of law here at home and abroad. Who suffers? It is people like Michael Kovrig, who is in prison in China for bogus reasons.

I know my friend here from P.E.I. is mocking us, but my own constituent, Robert Schellenberg, who is on death row in China, is the one who is going to have to pay for the Prime Minister's mistakes. It is all the same: failure after failure.

I could talk about our immigration system, because that is part of the social sustainability piece of this legislation. What do we have in our immigration system? We have eroded public confidence, because the Prime Minister will not enforce the law. What has happened here is those who obey the law are waiting in line while others jump the queue, costing the federal, provincial and municipal governments—for example, the City of Toronto—millions upon millions of dollars in additional housing, law enforcement and other costs, and the Prime Minister wants us to pay for his mistakes.

Let us talk about the environment. The Prime Minister was elected on a platform that said he was going to come forward with a pan-Canadian climate change plan. I remember being in Vancouver. The Vancouver declaration was signed by everyone except Brad Wall. The Prime Minister promised we would meet the Paris targets. By the way, I was in Paris too when that agreement was signed. People were expecting the Prime Minister to meet those targets. Today we know that the Liberal government is nowhere close to meeting its Paris targets. It talks a big game on the environment. Our environment minister gets up pretty regularly in the House and proclaims what a great job the Liberals are doing on the environment and that they are going to meet their Paris targets, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer says they will not meet the targets, when Canada's Commissioner of the Environment says they will not meet the targets, when the United Nations itself says Canada will not meet the targets. It is a failure, and who pays for that? We pay for the Prime Minister's mistakes.

I say all of this because this is of course an election year. Sustainability is a critical piece of what we do in Canada. We do have to find the right balance between our social environment, our natural environment and the economic environment in which we all operate and on which our families depend.

We cannot afford another four years of this Liberal government's failures. We saw what happened in Ontario with 15 years of the Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty governments driving their economy into the ground and driving up electricity costs to the highest level in North America. Is that what we want to repeat in Canada? No, we do not. That is why we cannot afford another four years.

What a lot of Canadians do not know is that the same crew who ran Ontario for 15 years and ran Ontario into the ground, many of that same crew are in the Prime Minister's office today, starting with Gerald Butts. Do we trust him to get our economy right? Do we trust him to get sustainability right? No, we do not. The problem is, if we have four more years of failure and four more years of a Prime Minister who wants us to pay for his mistakes, we will have a disaster.

We have not had a government as incompetent as this for many, many decades. Canadians should expect more. They should expect better.

I say this to Canadians: As we approach October, measure the Prime Minister against the promises he made. Did he actually deliver on his promises or is the road littered with broken promises? Balanced budgets was a broken promise. What about electoral reform? Remember how the last election was going to be the last one under first past the post? How did that go? It was a broken promise.

As we approach this election in October, Canadians need to take note of what the Prime Minister has actually done in this country to undermine our economic prosperity. He has effectively shut down our oil and gas sector. He has effectively shut down our pipeline construction. We have seen General Motors bailing out of Canada, and General Electric bailing out of Canada. What is happening? Why does the rest of the world not have confidence in Canada the way it used to under the former Conservative government? We had lots of investment coming into Canada.

Today, as I said earlier, we have lost about hundred billion dollars of investment, just over a period of a couple of years. That flow of investment out of Canada into places like the United States and elsewhere around the world is going to hurt job creation in this country. We are going to see that happen. It is going to require governments to raise taxes. Who pays those taxes? It is not only this generation. If we have deficits and if we have debts, future governments are going to have to continue to raise taxes to pay off those debts and deficits, and the interest on those debts.

I am coming right back, full circle, to the notion of intergenerational equity. It is something that is basically the linchpin of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. It ensures that future generations will continue to have the opportunity for prosperity and a clean environment that our current generation has had. The Prime Minister is undermining all of that through high taxes, high deficits and high debts. Who is going to pay for those mistakes? The Prime Minister wants us to pay for those mistakes.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I hear some chirping from the corner here from P.E.I. The Liberal members continue to do this. At the end of the day, who suffers from all of this heckling from the Liberal side? It is Canadians. It is future generations of Canadians. That is the sad choice that we have before us.

Let me wind up by saying this. Canadians do have an opportunity to get sustainability right. They will not get it right under the Liberal government but they will have an opportunity to make a decision in October whether they want to elect a Conservative government that is going to take seriously the fiscal challenges, economic challenges and competitiveness challenges that face our companies, including our small businesses, take seriously the environment challenges that face our country and face the globe, and take seriously the social challenges that this Liberal government is not addressing in any way.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, one would think that was an election speech, because what we heard from the Conservatives was a lot of misinformation. If that party wants to talk about facts, Stephen Harper added $150 billion to the national debt.

In terms of small business, look at the last fall economic statement, whereby we faced head on the challenges from the United States and increased capital cost allowances so that businesses in this country could move ahead.

The member talked about the CPTPP. I would ask the member this. Who signed and negotiated it at the end of the day? Who did the final agreement on the CPTPP to accept that agreement and negotiate a good agreement, which the Conservatives failed to negotiate? It was the minister on this side of the House who did that.

The future in this country is going to be a result of the Liberal government. Do not listen to the malarky we hear from the members on the other side, because they are just playing politics and giving false information, which I am surprised to hear from that member.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is pretty rich coming from the member for Malpeque. I was the trade minister when the TPP was negotiated. All the key elements of the original TPP were incorporated into the final agreement. When the United States bailed out, the other 11 parties said it was worthwhile moving ahead and finalizing it.

The Liberals want to challenge us on trade. When our former Conservative government was elected in 2006, how many trade agreements did we have with countries around the world? We had trade agreements with five countries: the United States, Mexico, Israel, Costa Rica and Chile. When we were finished 10 years later, we had completed the most ambitious and successful trade agenda this country had ever seen. We had trade agreements with 51 countries around the world, including CETA and including the TPP, which was a Conservative negotiation that took place successfully.

We will not take any lessons from the Liberals on trade.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following this debate and the level of hypocrisy is over the top. I recall all those trade deals that the Conservatives signed. What did they erase? All of the environmental provisions. I worked for the original environment commission in Montreal. I will note that in the new trade deal with the U.S., the Liberals undermined the environment in that deal too. There is a lot of hypocrisy here about genuinely acting on the words.

I would actually like to speak to Bill C-57. I know it might come as a surprise, as everybody is doing his or her electioneering here. What is important is that it is one thing to bring forward a bill and it is another thing to enact it. However, it is another thing to actually deliver the mandate and responsibilities under that bill.

The previous Liberal government and the previous Conservative government, as well as the present Liberal government, have all abjectly failed to deliver on the responsibilities of sustainable development. It is not me saying this. It is the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, who is appointed and retained in that position by the current Liberal government to review how well the government is delivering on its responsibilities.

It is also important to point out that in addition to the Sustainable Development Act, there is a second law. I would remind this place that a cabinet directive is binding law. We proved that with the Friends of the Oldman decision which involved a directive by cabinet on environmental assessment before we had the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We proved in the Supreme Court that cabinet directives were legally binding.

There has been a cabinet directive in place on environmental assessment of policy, plan and programs for decades. However, successive Conservative and Liberal governments have abjectly failed to deliver on that as well. That comes in the reports from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The Liberals, of course, signed on, yet again. They love to go to these international meetings. They signed on to the sustainable development agenda 2030, with 17 goals. They signed onto that in September 2015. Maybe it was the Conservatives who did that. They committed to 169 targets and 230 indicators.

There were a lot of goals in that international agreement. We need to note here that despite an amendment that I tabled at committee, the government refused to incorporate any reference to the UN commitment in the bill we are discussing today, the sustainable development 2030 agenda. So much for the commitment.

I had wanted to raise this with a number of the speakers who stood, the Conservatives criticizing the Liberals, the Liberals criticizing the Conservatives. Since 2015, and I am only starting at 2015, the commissioner has delivered failing grades in her audits of government commitments to actually deliver on the responsibilities, both under the Sustainable Development Act and the cabinet directive.

In the fall of 2015, she found abject failure by four departments audited to even apply the cabinet directive, zero assessments delivered for 488 proposals to the fisheries minister and only one out of over a 1,000 proposals to the minister of agriculture. In 2016, she found only 23% of proposals audited had submitted the required strategic environmental assessment. In 2017, she found a mere 20% compliance by federal departments.

Last year, in 2018, the commissioner's latest report found that the Government of Canada, the Liberal government, had failed to even develop a formal approach to implementing the 2030 agenda and the goals, including a very narrow interpretation of sustainable development. We heard that today in the debate, a pretty narrow discussion of what was actually in there. There is no federal government structure, and we are not going to see it in the bill either.

Interestingly, the bill continues to give responsibility to the Minister of Environment and yet it is another minister who goes off to the UN to speak to the bill as if it is his responsibility. There is a lot of confusion out there among Canadians about who in the government is actually responsible for delivering on the responsibilities for sustainable development.

The commissioner found there was very limited national consultation and engagement, no national implementation plan, few national targets and no system in place to measure, monitor or report on national targets for sustainable development.

We have heard a lot of blathering in here today from the Liberals about how important the environment and the economy are. However, where is the commitment to actually deliver on those responsibilities?

Eventually we are going to have a debate on the bill. Interestingly, a good number of the amendments that are coming forward from the Senate to this place are exactly the same amendments that I put forward, which the Liberals rejected. So much for “we're all in this together” in committee.

I would note one amendment that is most interesting. The Senate presented to this place a series of three amendments, two of which were accepted. The third one the Green Party and I actually tabled as an amendment to the bill because the government, in its wisdom, talks about being environmentally thoughtful in its spending, in procurement, but it would remove the requirement that is in law right now that the government actually consider sustainable development when it is procuring.

Let us think about that. It was almost $5 billion to buy a pipeline. We might think that the government thought about whether it was a wise investment economically and environmentally. Where is the strategic environmental assessment for that purchase? How about the many infrastructure banks the government is setting up for private enterprise here and in other countries? Did it do a strategic environmental assessment as per the cabinet directive? No.

The question here is this: Where is the real commitment by the government of the day to generally deliver on these big promises it made to Canadians and the big promises it makes when going to UN meetings?

I attended the consultation at the UN, the big summit last summer. The government sent a big delegation. At the last second, it invited youth but there was only a handful who could afford to come. Therefore, we had a call for better consultation and engagement across Canada so that everybody can participate in this discussion. However, when we look at the goals, we are not just talking about the economy or the environment. When we look at those 17 goals, they cover everything. They cover indigenous rights, women's rights, agriculture and water. I am not hearing any debate in the House about the breadth of what we have committed to in the 2030 goals. The Liberals refused to reference those in the bill before us.

There is a second matter the Liberals refused to reference, despite the amendments I tabled at committee. They have refused to incorporate into the bill the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is one of the goals under the 2030 sustainable development goals. They abjectly refused to specifically reference that international commitment, despite the fact that the former justice minister and attorney general actually committed before the Assembly of First Nations that, going forward, her Liberal government would ensure that the United Nations declaration would be incorporated into every federal law. Therefore, they have broken that promise too.

It is all very nice that we have some amendments coming from the Senate, but they are basically pro forma. They are simply saying that we need to update the bill so that it is the same as the current Auditor General Act. However, when it comes to substantive measures, like being required to actually consider sustainable development when we are making major procurement decisions and when making major recommendations to cabinet, then no, they are abjectly failing. I would have liked to hear anybody in the government of the day stand up and say that, going forward, they were going to finally deliver on their responsibilities. However, I did not hear that once today.

To conclude, it was my honour to speak to the bill again. I remain committed to actually having a government in Canada that is sincere about delivering on its international commitments.