Debates of Jan. 28th, 2019

Federal Sustainable Development Act

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, if nothing was more important to the Conservative members, they would understand that climate change is real. It impacts our generation now and will impact future generations. If we do not take it seriously, they will be living with the repercussions of our inaction. If the Conservatives were really taking this question seriously, they would have a plan. For 200-plus days they have said that they would have a plan, but they do not.

When it comes to looking after our children and grandchildren, we have put in place a number of initiatives, including a price on pollution to ensure that polluters pay, looking at a national poverty strategy to ensure that we are lifting children out of poverty with our CCB and ensuring that we have a plan that is comprehensive, holistic and whole-of-government and allows our children and grandchildren to have a prosperous future in this country.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I could talk about how the Liberal government will miss its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, but I will talk about the government's motion.

The Liberals agreed to Senate amendments 1 and 3, but they rejected amendment 2, in which the Senate suggested that federal government contracts should adhere to the targets in the federal sustainable development strategy.

Why is the Liberal government refusing to ensure that such contracts include provisions related to its own federal sustainable development strategy? I do not understand.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, we accepted amendments one and three. We rejected amendment two, because it fell outside the policy intent of this particular piece of legislation.

This particular piece of legislation is to ensure that across governments, through a whole-of-government approach, we have a collaborative and coordinated effort toward improved oversight and reporting and continued conversations with indigenous people and Canadians about how to ensure that our strategy is robust and will look to improve the lives of Canadians now and in the future. It has increased accountability for departments and agencies in setting and achieving very ambitious sustainable development targets and ensures that we have leadership and can reach our goals.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, hon. colleagues, I am delighted to be back in the House of Commons. I am especially pleased to have the privilege of speaking in this new chamber.

I rise today to speak to the Senate's amendments to Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. I want to thank the hon. senators for their time and efforts in reviewing this bill.

I would like to take this opportunity to provide a brief overview of how this bill aligns with the government’s commitments around delivering real results, pursuing goals with a renewed sense of collaboration, and setting a higher bar for transparency. I will continue with a discussion of the amendments adopted by the Senate.

This bill is a reflection of the Government of Canada’s commitment to sustainable development and safeguarding the interests of future generations. We all want a sustainable future for Canada, for our children and for our grandchildren. This bill clearly shows that sustainable development and the environment are at the forefront of government decision making.

This bill ensures that federal organizations bound by the act contribute to the development of federal sustainable development strategies and progress reports. In developing sustainable development strategies, federal organizations are to consider a number of principles, including the principle of intergenerational equity.

The bill indicates that targets must be measurable and include a time frame. That and the inclusion of the principle of results and delivery will help MPs, senators and the general public to keep track of the government's progress in meeting the goals and targets set out in each strategy every three years. This would incorporate the government’s strong focus on results into legislation.

The federal sustainable development strategy and its progress reports are a collaborative effort involving many departments and agencies. Bill C-57 would contribute to an integrated, whole-of-government view of activities supporting environmental sustainability. One way in which this would be achieved is by extending the Federal Sustainable Development Act’s coverage to over 90 federal organizations and enable further expansion of coverage over time.

The sustainable development strategies developed by these federal organizations will support the Federal Sustainable Development Act’s commitment to make environmental decision-making more transparent and accountable to Parliament.

Going forward, parliamentarians and relevant standing committees in both houses would have a greater ability to hold the government accountable for these sustainable development goals and targets. This would give committees a comprehensive view of what government organizations are doing with respect to sustainable development and the results achieved.

This bill received strong support from all parties of the House of Commons, where it was unanimously passed, and I hope that it will continue to be fully supported in the message we will send to the Senate.

I would now like to talk about the Senate's amendments.

First, the Senate agreed to some consequential amendments to bring the Auditor General Act in line with the changes made to the Federal Sustainable Development Act in Bill C-57. This reaffirms the commissioner's role under the Federal Sustainable Development Act and is supported by the government.

A second amendment was made to broaden the mandate of the Sustainable Development Advisory Council and not limit its advice on sustainable development matters to issues referred to it by the Minister of the Environment. Prior to this amendment, the bill stated that council members were to advise the minister on any matter related to sustainable development that is referred to the council by the minister. It is standard practice for ministerial advisory councils to provide advice on issues referred to them by the minister in charge. Defining the mandate of the Sustainable Development Advisory Council within the bill was meant to set clear parameters of its work. Although this amendment goes beyond our original intent, the government can accept it.

The third amendment would reinsert a section of the act that was removed. The current wording of the act stipulates that performance-based contracts with the Government of Canada must include provisions for meeting the applicable goals and targets referred to in the federal sustainable development strategy and the departmental sustainable development strategies.

It is the government's view that this section pertains to procurement. The alignment of procurement to environmental objectives is already included in the Treasury Board’s policy on green procurement, and that is why the government decided to repeal that section.

Also, Bill C-57 introduces section 10.1, which states that the Treasury Board may establish policies or issue directives applicable to designated entities governed by the Federal Sustainable Development Act in relation to the sustainable development impact of their operations. This explicitly recognizes the Treasury Board's role with respect to the impact of government operations on sustainable development.

On top of the fact that it is not appropriate to reinsert this section as written, the amendment further specifies that performance-based contracts include employment contracts and that they should include provisions for meeting the applicable goals and targets referred to in the federal sustainable development strategy as well as any applicable strategy developed under section 11.

The government does not support this amendment as this bill is not the appropriate legislation to prescribe what should be in employment contracts. Employment contracts are not easily defined, given their broad and wide-ranging nature. Moreover, this change is beyond the policy intent of a bill whose purpose is to make decision-making related to sustainable development more transparent and subject to accountability to Parliament.

Given all the provisions in the bill that strengthen other accountability measures, including identifying a minister responsible for each target in the federal sustainable development strategy, and explicitly indicating that the Treasury Board Secretariat may establish policies or issue directives applicable to one or more departments in relation to the sustainable development impact of their operations, the government does not see the benefit of this amendment.

The additional transparency and oversight measures included in this bill will provide enhanced accountability measures for the results achieved. That is why I agree with the minister and I support sending a message to the Senate agreeing with two amendments and disagreeing with the change to clause 8.

Madam Speaker, I welcome the debate on this amendment and your decision.

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

Madam Speaker, since we are talking about sustainable development and Canada's environment, I am wondering if my colleague opposite can tell us what price elasticity assumptions the government used in calculating its carbon tax and by how much it will reduce Canada's emissions by the end of this year. I would also like her to talk about how that compares to the opportunity costs many Canadians are incurring by taking on a carbon tax that does nothing to reduce Canada's emissions but makes their lives more expensive. As well, can she explain to Canadians why she thinks it is fair that Canadians should pay for the mistakes of this Prime Minister?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

I am sure she knows that I am from Quebec. The price on pollution in Quebec is widely accepted and has been in place for a long time now. People do not understand why we are not going even further in that respect.

I am back in the House after spending six weeks in my riding. The environment is probably the biggest issue people are talking about. What can we do to go even further, to help our children and grandchildren? The member surely knows that I used to be a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. We held consultations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The number one concern for people in the Far North is the fact that climate change is already happening. We really need to do even more.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I do not want to interpret her comments, and that is why I am asking my question. According to her explanation, Senate amendment 5 was rejected by the government because it did not reference the right act.

My question is very simple. Does the member accept the spirit of this amendment? Does the government agree with the spirit and is it simply saying that it is not in the right act?

If that is the case, in what legislation will it be included to ensure it becomes an integral part of the progress we want to make in fighting climate change?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I am glad to see he was really listening.

The reason we do not need to go further is that it is already included in the procurement harmonization.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleague is aware of the announcement made last week by the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that the Conservative government's primary objective would be to stop pollutants from being dumped in our waterways. That is a clear commitment for Canada's environment.

The member said earlier that the carbon tax would likely go up. Can she give us any details? Just how high will the Liberal carbon tax go if, heaven forbid, those folks over there are re-elected in a year?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague. I see that he is not very well rested after spending six weeks in his riding. I find him to be a little off.

Quebeckers believe that we must fight climate change and put a price on pollution. My colleague is from Quebec and has known for a long time that we are already environmentally conscious and that we want to go further, just like British Columbia.

I know he cannot answer this question, but I would like to know whether the Conservative Party has a plan to fight climate change. I have not seen one yet and there is nothing forthcoming. I am thinking of my children and my granddaughter.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say, but he cannot ask me any more questions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent had the opportunity to ask a question. He will have to wait for another opportunity, if one presents itself, to ask another question.

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 Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Health; the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, International Trade; and the hon. member for Essex, International Trade.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to stand in the House to talk about sustainable development and Canada's environment and to point out the vast swath of hypocrisy that the government has undertaken in its time in office. Regardless of political stripe, regardless of where someone is in terms of environmental policy in this country, everyone agrees that the Liberals in this Parliament have a woeful and inept track record of doing anything for Canada's environment.

Let us start with the carbon tax. A colleague from the Liberal caucus just stood and said that the carbon tax should be higher. She said that in response to a question I asked about whether a carbon tax would actually do anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

Why did she try to spin that question and show the Liberals' true agenda? It is because we know the carbon tax that Justin Trudeau has put in place on Canadians will do nothing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member she is not to mention, during her speech, individuals' names who are sitting in the House.

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

It is the new environment, Madam Speaker. One gets very excited about the carbon tax and fighting it and fighting the perpetrator of the carbon tax. I hope Canadians will forgive me for that. It was a slip of the tongue.

The carbon tax has been imposed by the disastrous Liberal Prime Minister. Canadians have to pay for his mistake of putting in place a carbon tax and not reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Let me explain this.

If somebody in Canada wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that individual has to first realize that Canada has an agricultural-based economy. We also have a natural resource-based economy and a manufacturing-based economy. All of these industries are carbon intensive. They take energy to run. It is cold here in Ottawa. Just taking a few short steps outside the House of Commons today makes one realize that we need energy to heat our buildings in the middle of January.

The reality is that many Canadians have to drive to work. Canada does not have the same sort of public transit infrastructure that a small European country has. When we put all of those things together and look at the economic context of Canada, we understand that the price the Prime Minister has put on carbon will do nothing to change the demand for carbon.

People who have to drive to work in downtown Calgary from my riding of Calgary Nose Hill, after the disastrous failure to build the green line in my riding that my former government committed to, need to fill up their cars. They do not really have a choice of how to commute to work. The price of gas does not matter as they have to put gas in their cars. If it is more expensive, that means more money coming out of their pockets. The only way they can change their behaviour is by saying it is no longer affordable for them to drive to work. In that case we would see an economic reduction instead of what the Liberals always talk about, which is growing Canada's economy and balancing the environment.

Under our former Conservative government we saw for the first time in Canadian history a decoupling of economic growth. We saw the economy grow and greenhouse gas emissions drop. Why was that? It was because we told each of the major emitting sectors in Canada that we would put regulations in place such that they would have to adapt to a lower carbon emitting standard over time. That resulted in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions with respect to passenger vehicles and the coal-fired electricity sector. All those regulations were put in place under the Conservative government.

The carbon tax is just a consumption tax. It is like the Liberals have added another GST to Canada's economy. It is not going to do anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As somebody who cares about this issue, it is so devastating for me to watch their uninformed environment minister be completely unaware of any of the realities of the failed economic model of this situation.

My colleague who just made a speech spoke to their hidden agenda. She said the carbon tax is not high enough and that we need to make it higher. Anybody who watches the Liberal government knows that it cannot resist raising a tax. Anybody who thinks that the carbon tax is bad now, should know that it is going to go up.

The government has no plan on how to grow the economy. It only has a plan to build a deficit. What does that mean? Today's deficit is tomorrow's taxes. We have a carbon tax that is not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we have huge growing deficits. For the amount of money that the Liberal government has spent on nothing that has materially impacted the lives of Canadians in a positive way, we could have sent a gold-plated rocket ship to the moon.

Canadians do not see anything for these deficits, but they will see increased taxes. Canadians are tired of paying for the Prime Minister's ego, his love for himself and his failed policies. That is why we cannot trust Liberals on any sort of policy related to sustainable development, but I want to build on that case.

We know the carbon tax is a failure, but there is something even bigger in terms of hypocrisy. The government has done everything possible to undermine the workers in the energy sector and the industries that are part of the energy sector across this country. It has done everything possible to call their jobs dirty. The Prime Minister even said in Paris that he wished they could phase out the energy sector faster.

The people on this side of the aisle support transporting Canada's energy products in the most environmentally responsible way, which is pipelines. The Liberals across the aisle are content to let our energy products be transported by rail, which has both environmental implications and implications on our agriculture sector. They are saying they should use rail and and not pipelines or they should shut the energy sector down, but at the same time, what are they doing?

Let us talk about a pipeline, one of the few pipelines that the Liberal Party loves, and that is a pipeline of fecal matter. That is right. The same Liberal government that says it does not like pipelines got behind the former mayor of Quebec and approved the City of Montreal dumping billions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River.

People in the energy sector are told on a daily basis that their jobs are dirty and that pipelines are not environmentally sustainable. One has to appreciate the level of frustration and anger at the hypocrisy of the environment minister telling them their jobs are dirty and the government is working against pipelines. I believe her chief of staff made an entire career out of fighting pipelines. It is “no pipelines for the energy sector”, but what did the Liberals do in their first months in office? On the minister's sixth day in office, when a top priority was to turn the lights on in the office, the environment minister approved a plan for the City of Montreal to dump billions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. There are concerns about pipelines in Quebec, but not about fecal matter pipelines. Fecal matter pipelines are okay. Job-creating energy pipelines are not okay. That is sustainable development under the Liberal government.

It gets worse. I am not sure what other word I can use for “fecal matter” in the House that is parliamentary, but viewers at home can imagine and insert the word appropriately here. The Conservative government said we should not be developing a pipeline of fecal matter since there were a lot of concerns about fish habitat and the terrible precedent that this decision would create for the future. We wanted to ensure that all of the appropriate actions and research had been done and we actually named a panel to review the plan. In October of 2015, the former Conservative government mandated an independent science review panel to review the proposed discharge of the raw sewage of Montreal. This was a very important step.

What did the sustainable development-loving environment minister, the “Alberta has dirty jobs” environment minister, the “no energy pipeline” environment minister do on her sixth day in office? She said, “No Alberta pipelines, but Montreal can dump away. Dump all of that fecal matter into the river. We do not need a fish habitat. Dump it in. Set that precedent. That is great.”

That is sustainable development under the Liberal government. We have a carbon tax that will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we have the Minister of Environment jetting around the world to climate action panels and cocktail receptions fully understanding that the government is never going to meet its own self-imposed greenhouse gas emissions target.

At the same time, the environment minister calls the jobs of the people in my riding dirty, tells the rest of Canada that we cannot put in place energy infrastructure, which is one of the most sustainable ways to transport energy products around the world, and signs off on a plan that had no review to dump billions of litres of fecal matter into the St. Lawrence River. I wonder how baby beluga felt about that.

This is why the government has no credibility whatsoever on sustainable development. It is one of the areas where the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party can actually unite and say that there is no credibility there. However, it is even worse, because rather than talking about policy, government members just stand up and frankly repeat falsehoods. They are trying to buy the votes of Canadians with their mumbo jumbo while at the same building pipelines of billions of litres of raw sewage.

I want people to visualize a full porta-potty after the end of a summer fair, then multiply that by one billion and dump that into the St. Lawrence River. That is what we are talking about. That is what the environment minister did on her sixth day in office, yet the jobs of the people in my riding are dirty and we should phase out the energy sector. Pardon me if I have some level of skepticism about the government's sustainable development plan.

I thought we could not possibly go into the lead-up to the federal election and not deal with the Montreal raw sewage issue. The Liberals could not possibly stand by this, yet they are. That is their sustainable development priority. I am so proud that the leader of my party stood up and said that a Conservative government would not allow this. It is not something we think is sustainable development.

I look at some of the things the government could have done over the last several years. In 2017, 250 billion litres of raw sewage was spilled or leaked into our waterways without being treated. This is the equivalent of 86,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. Again, we can try to visualize that in terms of the volume of a porta-potty. However, pipelines with energy projects are not okay. The Liberals would rather they not happen. For pipelines, which are subject to the most rigorous environment assessments in the world, no, we cannot do that, but 86,000 Olympic-size swimming pools full of fecal matter are good to go. That is the Liberal Party's sustainable development agenda.

In 2016, under the government's watch, only 159 out of 269 municipalities reported their sewage leaks. Why is the Liberal government not concerned about these missing reports? Why is the government not helping these municipalities upgrade their sewage infrastructure to ensure that no raw sewage is spilled into Canadian waters?

On this issue I am pleased to say that the former Conservative government set the stage in 2012 with the first wastewater regulations as a means of cleaning up 150 billion litres of untreated or under-treated wastewater or sewage that is dumped into waterways each year. Again, where is the Liberals' action on the environment? It is making Canadians pay for the Prime Minister's mistake, his failed legacy of any sort of environmental standard whatsoever, at the pump or on their tax bills.

A lot of Canadians are waking up to the hypocrisy of the government across a majority of issues. It is very exciting to see. I was able to travel across British Columbia this month. I travelled into some ridings, such as Cloverdale—Langley City. We had a town hall and about 250 people showed up. I thought it was going to be an interesting room. There was a Liberal member of Parliament there who won by a considerable majority. I heard people stand up in that room and say that they voted for the Prime Minister and he betrayed them.

This is why the Conservative Party is rolling out a plan of pragmatism. It is why we have opposed government bills like Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill, which would do nothing to practically clean up the Canadian environment but would do everything to make it harder for Canadians to work on a daily basis.

That is where we have to wonder what the current government is managing to. If it is managing to taxing Canadians more but getting fewer results, what is in it for Canadians? Why do they have to pay for the Prime Minister's mistakes? What are the motives of every person across the aisle who votes in favour of these bills that do nothing to help the Canadian environment or the economy but make lives worse for Canadians? Why are they doing this? They could be doing it because they have not actually reviewed this legislation and are not doing their jobs. That could be one matter.

When I watch the Prime Minister and the environment minister and what their priorities are, such as going to Tedx conferences and different conferences around the world, where they are spouting their talking points to international audiences, as opposed to looking at home and doing their jobs here and then reporting back to the world on success, I wonder if it is more about their egos and seeking power for power's sake as opposed to doing something that actually matters.

Members do not have to take my word for it, although I would like it if they did. The reality is that the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development talked about some of these issues in his report this year. It is important to highlight this, because it talks about the fact that the measures to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions contained in the government's framework have yet to be implemented. That is on top of the carbon tax the government has put forward, which is probably going to do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but is going to make Canadians pay for the Prime Minister's mistakes. The report is quite shocking for a government that had an environment minister dressed up as a climate crusader for Halloween and put it on Twitter. One would think a climate crusader could get a better report from the environment and sustainable development commissioner than that.

I want to close with this. The Liberals can stand up, obfuscate and put all these pretty talking points forward. At the end of the day, their priority and track record has been a carbon tax that makes life more expensive for Canadians and does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They have stymied energy infrastructure in this country and have prioritized billions of litres of fecal matter going into the St. Lawrence River.

[Sean Fraser, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, to begin, I would question the relevance of the member's entire submission on this point, given that we are debating the Senate amendments to Bill C-57, which she did not touch on.

In any event, she spent a good portion of her time on waste water. I would like to point out some of the inaccuracies throughout her speech. She indicated that the Conservatives took a regulatory approach. What they did not have was an infrastructure plan to allow municipalities to deal with their waste water problems, which we are doing right now.

She suggested that this whole side of the House is somehow opposed to the energy industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. I personally spent about five years working in the city of Calgary, the same city the member represents. I can tell her that this side of the House does have supporters of the sector who are working hard to ensure that we develop our resources in a responsible way.

When it comes to our plan to put a price on pollution, we have to start by saying that climate change is a problem. The Conservatives have yet to pitch a single idea for what they are going to do to address the threat posed by climate change.

On this side of the House, we do not think pollution should be free. We have sought the advice of the world's leading climate economists. They have all come back to the same point, which is that the most effective thing we can do to combat climate change is to put a price on pollution and return revenues to citizens. That is what we are doing.

My question to the member opposite is this. Why are she and the Leader of the Opposition committed to taking Doug Ford's approach to climate change and taking money from their constituents to make pollution free again?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned relevance. I think it is fairly relevant to the sustainable development of Canada to talk about billions of litres of fecal matter being poured into the St. Lawrence under the watch of the environment minister.

The member talked about infrastructure. The only infrastructure dollars that have been prioritized by the current government were for the infrastructure minister's office renovations at the front of this Parliament. Canadians have seen virtually no movement of the billions of dollars of deficit for infrastructure across this country. For a man to say that he worked in Calgary's energy sector and to then vote time and again on bills to support the Trans Mountain pipeline or to get energy workers back to work, we have one word for that in Calgary. That is “traitor”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the hon. member to ensure that she watches the words she uses in the House of Commons. There are words that should not be used in the House, and we need to be respectful of other members. We may not be in agreement as to what they are saying or what their positions are, but we should be very careful of the words being used.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think we are starting to see where the Conservatives are going to be posturing themselves with rhetoric as we head into the next election. That is fair enough. They have a good reputation for talking about things that are full of fecal matter. Therefore, this is right up their alley.

The member referenced what the environment minister was forced to do six days after our government came into power. Why was the environment minister forced to do that? It was because in the preceding 10 years, there was absolutely no work done by the previous Conservative government with respect to building up the infrastructure so that the City of Montreal did not have to do what it had to do. It is quite simple. It is literally a pool of fecal matter, and it is a matter of whether we can properly process what is in there before it enters the St. Lawrence. If the proper infrastructure had been in place, the environment minister would not have had to do that six days after we came into government.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member is very capable of answering the question. I would ask all other members to hold their thoughts.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

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

Madam Speaker, once again, I will point out the fact that the government has racked up so much deficit and has increased Canadian taxes and has done nothing for infrastructure in Canada. Under our former Conservative government, Canada's aged infrastructure was reduced significantly. We had huge investments in infrastructure under a balanced budget and the lowest federal tax burden in over 50 years. That is a concept the government has no idea of whatsoever.

The member can stand up and be glib about this, but the reality is that he is actually making excuses for Montreal dumping billions of litres of sewage into the St. Lawrence River. Now he is saying that they did not have a choice. If they actually cared about infrastructure, why did they approve this plan? I am not sure any scientist would actually say that this was a great thing. Where was their infrastructure support? That is the problem.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

The government has had three years to do anything on any of these files, and it has done nothing except spend money and raise taxes, and now they have to account, because Canadians are tired of paying for the Prime Minister's mistakes and failed policies.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members again that when someone has the floor to be respectful. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands had the opportunity to ask his question, and I would ask him to allow the person who has the floor to have the opportunity to respond without being interrupted.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, when the Conservatives were in power, much to their credit, they brought back the eco-energy retrofit program, which was a great program that actually gave money to families or small businesses to retrofit their buildings so they could save on their energy bills. In fact, when I was on the public works committee, I actually brought forward the idea of looking at how much taxpayer money could be saved if the federal government invested in a major way in energy efficiency. In the end, we had a fabulous report, by the way, from a majority Conservative committee.

The Conservatives brought in this plan. It was over-subscribed. People loved it, and the Conservatives killed it. Why did they kill it? They wanted to bring down their deficit before the election.

Does the member not believe that a good initiative for sustainable development is to support Canadian families so they can do their part too and reduce their energy costs through a home energy retrofit program?