Debates of May 16th, 2019

The Environment

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to TMX, that member was right. Équiterre has also said that the government's actions should not be judged on the Trans Mountain pipeline purchase alone, but rather on all actions taken by this government. No federal government in Canadian history as been more motivated and determined when it comes to the environment and fighting climate change. I am not the one saying so; several environmentalists are saying just that, including Sidney Ribaux and Steven Guilbeault.

I would therefore urge my colleague to look at government action overall. Our government put a price on pollution. It has made historic investments in public transit and green infrastructure. It will phase out coal by 2030. It will cut methane emissions from the oil and gas sector in half by 2025. It included incentives for the purchase of zero-emission vehicles in the last budget. The list of measures our government has taken goes on and on.

These investments include $7.5 billion for Quebec to put towards public transit and green infrastructure, which will have a real impact on greenhouse gas reductions. What makes no sense to me is the NDP's plan for austerity and cuts, which it seems to have lifted from Stephen Harper's playbook. In 2015, despite its ambitious environmental goals, the NDP still campaigned on Harper-style austerity and balanced budgets.

We took a different approach. We knew that significant challenges lied ahead and that appropriate action was needed, including investments in infrastructure and public transit. Canada has tremendous infrastructure needs from coast to coast to coast, especially in the area of green transportation and sustainable mobility. This is where I simply do not understand the position of the NDP, which campaigned on austerity despite having ambitious environmental plans.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Chilliwack—Hope, our chief opposition whip.

After several hours now of overheated Liberal rhetoric and revisionist history, it is time to get back to some basic facts. Climate change is real; climate change is a global problem, and climate change demands a global solution.

Canada, which generates barely 1.6% of global GHG emissions, must still do its part. That is why the leader of the official opposition will lay out the most comprehensive climate policy ever proposed by an opposition party in Canadian history, just a few weeks from now.

The motion before us fails to acknowledge that Canada today falls far short of its emissions reduction targets, so let us just take a look at Canada's targets under the 2015 Paris Agreement.

When they came to office, the Liberals embraced the same targets set by the previous Conservative government, to reduce GHG emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. When those Conservative targets were set, it was not with a carbon tax imposed on commuters and soccer moms and small businesses. We focused on the major emissions sectors. Working with the scientists at Environment Canada and the scientific community beyond, we developed meaningful regulations that did not hamstring hard-working Canadian taxpayers or the Canadian economy.

Transportation was the largest emitting sector, with about a quarter of Canada's total annual emissions. With our American counterparts, we developed continental tailpipe regulations that are still reducing emissions today. These regulations, which came into force in 2012 and built on existing regulations, require that all cars and light trucks built between 2017 and 2025 be required to cut emissions by an average of 5% every year. These regulations will see tailpipe emissions reduced to 50% of what they were in 2008.

There is a cost. The new technology adds somewhat to the cost of each new model year, but there is a significant offsetting benefit. Fuel consumption will also be reduced by some 50% from 2008 levels by 2025.

When the Liberals, with gesticulation and hyperbole, hysterically defend their carbon tax, which is indiscriminately imposed on commuters, soccer moms and small business transport companies, they are actually imposing a cost on top of what these motorists are already paying for environmentally responsible technology and significantly reduced emissions and fuel consumption. The bottom line is that the Liberals are riding on reductions that are still being realized today as a result of the previous Conservative government's regulations on large emitters.

Similarly, the previous Conservative government achieved reductions by regulating the coal-fired electricity generating sector, which effectively banned the construction of any new coal-fired units that use old technology.

It is true that we did not hit our overall targets, but it is also true that we did not compromise the economic well-being of hard-working taxpayers or the competitiveness of our economy overall. We worked to protect the environment at the same time as we worked to protect the economy.

We made progress. Emissions were reduced, in sharp contrast to the world's major emitters, who blithely signed the Kyoto and Copenhagen accords and then did nothing. I am talking about China, which generates almost two-thirds of global GHG emissions, and whose emissions are still rising. I am talking about the United States, India, Brazil and so many other countries whose representatives, along with this Liberal government, partied the nights away in Paris and signed the Paris Agreement with toasts of champagne and foie gras tasties.

That brings me back to the motion before us and its preposterous objective of deepening targets, which would risk our economic well-being and achieve precious little in global terms while the major polluting countries keep pumping out ever-increasing amounts of GHGs.

Again, the motion fails to acknowledge that Canada continues to fall far short of its emissions reduction targets.

We have proposed an amendment to the motion that would recognize the reality we face, that Canada is failing to meet its targets under the Liberal plan. It would demand that the Liberals table a real environment plan, not a revenue plan and not a tax plan, to lower emissions and achieve Canada's targets.

We know that small-business owners and their employees care about the environment and have implemented a wide range of environmental initiatives. However, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has just released a policy position paper that reveals that 87% of business owners in the four provinces where the federal carbon backstop tax is positioned say that they are opposed to the carbon tax and that the majority of these business owners will not be able to pass on their costs to consumers.

The CFIB numbers also show that small businesses will pay almost 50% of the carbon tax, with 50% paid by households. While the Liberals claim that households will get back 90% of their carbon taxes paid in rebate payments, small-business owners will get back rebates of barely 7% of their carbon taxes paid. With just about every aspect of the Prime Minister's climate change policy position, this motion has little to do with meaningful action and everything to do with desperate virtue-signalling politics.

The Prime Minister was elected, promising sunny ways, transparency, accountability, rainbows and unicorns, but he is running away from yet another scandal and trying to distract from it. He finished a dismal fourth in a British Columbia by-election. He is desperate and he is trying to find anything to change the channel.

The Liberals have had three and a half years to come up with a real plan for the environment. Meanwhile, Canada is falling further and further away from emission targets, even as the Liberals attempt to defend the carbon tax, which hits hard-working taxpayers and small businesses, while allowing at the same time massive exemption for the big polluters.

Again, climate change is real, climate change is a global problem, climate change is a global challenge and climate change demands global solutions. In contrast to the Liberals' failed plan, their high-carbon hypocrisy, in just a few short weeks, the Conservatives will lay out an environment plan that our Conservative leader promises will provide the best chance of reaching Canada's targets, the most comprehensive climate policy ever proposed by an opposition party in Canadian history.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility]

Madam Speaker, I listened with attention to the member's statement. Fundamentally, the pan-Canadian framework to combat the effects of climate change reposes on a simple idea and, at its heart, a Conservative idea. It is a market-based solution where we price behaviours that are undesirable, that is burning fossil fuels, and reward those by making it revenue-neutral and giving a rebate thereby saving the average family money.

I am more interested in the behaviour of the Ontario government, my colleague's home province. It would take millions of taxpayer dollars, dollars that could be going to libraries, to planting trees, to hiring nurses, to hiring teachers and to adding MRI machines in hospitals, and spend them to combat a plan and a government that has taken on the effects of climate change. We have this perverse situation where tax dollars in Ontario are going to discourage other governments from combatting climate change. Would the member please provide his opinion on that?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought this place was for talking about federal issues, not about the Province of Ontario, its particular plans and what it is going to do or not. I would like the question to be more focused on what is at hand here.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is not a point of order. I am sure the hon. member knows there is a lot of flexibility. Given the subject matter, I am sure the hon. member for Thornhill will be able to answer that question.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, perhaps the member opposite is contemplating the day after October 21, and may want to try his hand at provincial politics, perhaps in the province of Ontario or somewhere else.

With regard to his raising market-based solutions, I wonder how that fits in with the millions of dollars given to one of Canada's richest retail companies, with regard to the coolers and fridges for Loblaws, at the same time the Liberal shot gun carbon taxes, applied across the socio-economic scale, are causing increasing hardship? If the Liberal government were to be re-elected, it would ramp up the carbon taxes, which would have to be borne by those in Canadian society least able to carry those costs.

We believe in reducing emissions from the major emitters, not from burdening ordinary hard-working taxpayers with an unnecessary, unrealistic, unproductive carbon tax.

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

Madam Speaker, a few years ago, the Harper government, which the member was a part of, gutted environmental protection for thousands of Canadian lakes and rivers by amending the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The Conservatives even tried to hide the cuts in an omnibus bill so people would not notice.

Do they really expect us to believe that their ideas about the environment are completely different now? I do not believe them, and I do not think Canadians will believe them either.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

We know the Liberal government rolled back many of the responsible environmental programs we had to support responsible resource development. Navigable waters was one of them. There has not yet been one example put forward by any member in the House of damage done by the improvements we made in conjunction with municipalities and provinces to eliminate some of the red tape in the previous act.

With regard to the fate of Bill C-48 in the Senate, that bill has fallen off the legislative platform, as it well should. Bill C-48 was a discriminatory law aimed directly at Canada's responsible oil and gas industry.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House today on an issue that is important to all Canadians.

I want to read into the record the amendment we are debating at the moment, which was proposed by the member for Abbotsford at the end of his excellent presentation earlier today. It reads:

...the House recognize that:

(a) climate change is a real and urgent global problem requiring real global solutions and that Canada can and must take a leadership role in developing those global solutions;

(b) human activity has an impact on climate change and its effects impact communities across the country and the world;

(c) Canada and the world must take urgent action to mitigate global climate change and combat its impacts on the environment;

(d) the government's own “Clean Canada” report shows the government is falling short of the Paris targets by 79 million tonnes,

and, therefore, as an alternative to its current proposal to tackle climate change involving a non-binding declaration, the House call upon the government to produce a real climate change plan that will enable Canada to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions according to the targets of the Paris agreement.

That is the difference between our amendment and the government motion. The government motion fails on a couple of significant levels. It does not talk about the global nature of the problem and, specifically, it does not address the fact that the government is falling further and further behind the targets it agreed to in Paris a couple of years ago.

We heard the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley reminded the House earlier that those were the targets set under former prime minister Stephen Harper. Those are the targets we are talking about today. The targets set by the former Conservative government were such good targets that the Liberal government embraced them, but it is failing to meet them.

The comments from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, declaring that the Prime Minister was a high carbon hypocrite, goes right to the member putting forward this motion in the House today. There are 22 sitting days left in this Parliament before we go back to our ridings for the summer and then the House dissolves due to the upcoming election. However, sanctimonious Liberals on the other side are asking how we cannot say that this is an emergency. They have had an opportunity for three and a half years to bring forward this motion. For three and a half years, they have had an opportunity to bring about a climate plan to reduce emissions to meet the targets they agreed to in Paris, and they have utterly failed.

What the Liberals have come up with instead is a carbon tax, a tax that punishes average working Canadians, while it lets the big emitters off the hook. It lets them continue to target the people we represent in our ridings for doing things Canadians have to do, things like heating their homes, driving to work, driving to school and taking their aged parents to a doctor's appointed. The government has decided to embrace a climate plan to punish those people for living in Canada.

I hear laughter on the other side. We hear laughter from the Liberals when they think about that. They do not care about those people. They care about people like the owners of Loblaws, the owners of a multi-billion company, who get $12-million gift of free fridges that they would have bought on their own. That is called a climate plan to these Liberals. They are looking out for those people. Some emergency from the perspective of the Liberals.

The climate is such an emergency to Liberals that the Prime Minister got on his taxpayer-funded private jet and flew to Tofino for a couple of days of surfing. By the way, it was on Earth Day. He got on his private plane, burned the fuel and got to have his holiday in British Columbia.

A survey released this week by Toyota Canada shows that over half of British Columbians are rethinking their holiday plans because of the price of fuel. They cannot afford to fill the tank in their vehicles to go see their family or take the vacation they have been looking forward to all year. Rich British Columbians will have no problem reaching into their pockets, getting out a couple more $20 bills or $50 bills and paying for that extra price of fuel.

Similarly, the Prime Minister has no problem reaching into taxpayers' pockets and taking a private jet to Tofino. There is no way to get to Tofino on public transit. People have to drive there. It is a long, beautiful drive, one that I have made before, and it requires a vehicle with a full tank of gas. The Prime Minister has made it many times, but on a taxpayer-funded jet. He is a high-carbon hypocrite.

He did the same thing during the height of the SNC-Lavalin scandal when he used the taxpayer-funded private jet to take another vacation in Florida. He does not pay for the fuel and he does not care about the carbon tax. He went to Florida with the family when he needed some downtime, which is fine, but then he flew back to Ottawa for a private meeting and a photo op, and then back to Florida again, and then back to Ottawa one more time.

It is a climate change emergency, according to the Liberals, but it is an emergency for somebody else to pay for, because they should not have to change their ways and the Prime Minister should not have to change his ways; he just wants Canadians to change theirs. He wants them to drive less to get their kids to school, drive less to get their kids to their soccer practice, drive less to get their mom or grandmother to the hospital or to the doctor. That is what the government is doing. We have seen it time and again.

We have also seen that they actually do not believe in it. John Horgan, the premier of British Columbia, is a classic example. He also, like the Prime Minister, has virtue-signalling motions like this one, but he actually increased the carbon tax higher than what is mandated under the national carbon tax plan. He jacked it up on April 1. He jacked up the price of fuel even more than he was required to under the Prime Minister's law. Then, two weeks later, when the price hit $1.80 a litre, he said it was a crisis and that we needed to do something because people were paying too much for fuel, but we all know that this is exactly what he wants and exactly what the Prime Minister wants. He said as much when he was in British Columbia a year ago. They want Canadians to pay a price for living in this country, and in a large portion of this country, people are living in remote areas where they have to drive to do the things that are necessary.

What happens when we do not treat this as a global issue? We have seen what happens when the Liberals do not treat this as a global issue. They think that Canada is an island unto itself and that if they impose additional costs on businesses and individuals, it has no impact.

What have we seen since the current government took office? We have seen the greatest flight of capital this country has ever seen. We have seen billions of dollars, nearly $100 billion, fleeing the country, primarily out of the energy sector, and setting up shop in other places that are not putting a carbon tax on their businesses. In the case of Royal Dutch Shell, it was an $18.4 billion flight of capital. For ConocoPhillips, it was $17.7 billion; Devon Energy, $7 billion; Kinder Morgan, $4.5 billion; Marathon Oil, $3.3 billion; Chevron Energy, $1.5 billion; Murphy Oil, $937 million; Apache Corporation, $927 million; Statoil ASA, $832 million; Total S.A., $560 million, and the government celebrates it. The Liberals celebrate that flight of capital, because it is from the dirty industries that they do not like to talk about.

Those companies have not gone out of oil and gas; they are developing oil and gas in the United States. They are developing oil and gas in the offshore of Brazil. They are developing oil and gas in Kazakhstan and places that do not have the same high world-leading clean energy policies that this country has. We develop the cleanest, greenest energy in the world, and we should celebrate it, because that is something that all Canadians can be proud of.

The motion that the government has brought forward is an attempt to distract from its fourth-place finish in a recent by-election in British Columbia with 22 days left in the sitting of this Parliament. The Liberals are not taking emissions seriously, which is proven by their 79-million-tonne shortfall on their own targets. That is why we will support our amendment and not their motion.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the member is not particularly fond of our Prime Minister and that the conversation in this place often devolves into partisan attacks back and forth on all sides, but climate change is a real and urgent threat and it is an emergency. That is not my analysis but the analysis of thousands of scientists from well over 180 countries around the world.

Very simply, does the member agree that climate change is an emergency?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a problem that requires urgent action, but the member's own caucus does not believe it is an emergency. A leaked document showed that Ontario Liberal members of Parliament rank it about seventh on the list of priorities that they want to talk about in the next election. They do not think it is an emergency. The Liberal government has never acted as though it is an emergency. It is missing its own targets by nearly 80 million tonnes.

It is all well and good today, with 22 sitting days left, to declare a national climate emergency, but it is an empty gesture by the government. Its gestures are not backed up by its actions. It has great words, but it is terrible on action, which is exactly the condemnation that applies to everything that the Prime Minister does. He is simply not as advertised.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member for Chilliwack—Hope to explain a little more about the situation that exists in B.C. because of the extremely high gas prices, which the Prime Minister says are exactly what he wants.

In his experience, are people driving less or more? I have seen newspaper articles explaining how people in B.C. are driving further so they can get across the border to the U.S. to purchase fuel there, burning more fuel in total but doing it at less cost by purchasing it in the U.S.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct.

I live in Chilliwack, which is about a 30-minute drive from the Sumas border crossing and a little further from the Aldergrove border crossing. Canadians are lining up for kilometres, idling their cars while they wait to cross over the border, because right now they can save $25 or $30 per fill-up by going to the United States.

This is another real-world example of the carbon leakage that the government's ill-advised plan sets in motion. People are making other choices, and they are making dangerous choices too. The price of fuel is so dire for them that they are putting jerry cans in the trunks of their cars or in the back of their SUVs and endangering themselves. Because the price is so high in British Columbia, they are being forced to make that choice.

That is what happens with bad government policy. It does not actually impact the emissions globally or even locally; it just displaces emissions to the United States in this case.

The plan is not working. A Conservative government will come up with one that does.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, with their weak targets and their sector-by-sector regulatory approach, the Conservatives never met Canada's greenhouse gas reduction targets. They withdrew Canada from the Kyoto protocol, and they never regulated the oil and gas sector, Canada's dirtiest sector.

How can anyone suggest the Conservatives have any credibility on climate change and the climate crisis now?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, we withdrew from the Kyoto protocol because it did not include the United States and it did not include China and it did not include India. It did not include any of the big emitters that need to be part of the global solution.

We will see, at the end of June, the most comprehensive plan that has ever been put forward by an opposition party in this country, a plan that will actually address global emissions and help Canada meet the targets that we have committed to.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, climate change is an emergency for our planet and it is important that the House come together.

I have heard in the House already that we need action and not more words, but when we look outside of this place, we see that some Canadians and some of our constituents do not fully understand the need for immediate and stronger action. It is incredibly important as a sign of leadership for every single one of us in the House to stand and say that this is a climate emergency and that we need stronger action from this government.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Halifax, who I know is a strong supporter of climate action as well.

We have known that this has been an emergency for some time now. In the fall, I was one of a handful of MPs to call for an emergency debate in the House and note that climate change is an emergency.

Of course, it is not just political leaders in Canada or political leaders around the world who are noting this; scientists for too many years have been telling us that it is an emergency. In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the authors say that if we do not act now, in the next few years we will face very serious consequences for our planet.

The consensus of over 15,000 scientists from over 180 countries is this:

Since 1992, with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse. Especially troubling is the current trajectory of potentially catastrophic climate change due to rising GHGs from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and agricultural production....

The document goes on to say:

To prevent widespread misery and catastrophic biodiversity loss, humanity must practice a more environmentally sustainable alternative to business as usual.

Without question, climate change presents us with a challenge, but it is our international, our intergenerational and fundamentally our moral responsibility to do our part.

What does doing our part mean? It is helpful to assess where have we been and where do we need to go. We know the previous Conservative and Liberal governments have not done enough. The last Conservative government did the bare minimum. While we are not yet on pace to meet our international obligations as this Liberal government, without question we have made significant and meaningful progress.

Let me quote Mark Jaccard, professor of sustainable energy at Simon Fraser University:

In just four years, [new federal] policies have transformed Canada from a global pariah under the Harper government to a model for climate action under [this Prime Minister]. ...

In climate policy, experts agree that Canada is finally a global leader.

It is not a partisan writing that and it is not a Liberal writing that; it is a professor at Simon Fraser University, a professor in this very subject matter.

What are these new federal policies that have made Canada a leader in tackling climate change? Most of the attention has been on pricing pollution, and for good reason. We have a provincial Conservative government in Ontario spending $30 million to spread misinformation about the plan, yet it remains the most efficient and effective solution to tackling climate change. Of course we know it is not the only solution; we clearly need additional actions when there is such political consternation over pricing pollution alone.

What has this government done in the last four years? I am going to go down a long list. Taxing is all we hear about from my colleagues in the opposition, so here is a long list for the members opposite: green procurement rules; accelerated phase-out of coal-fired electricity; strong methane regulations to reduce these emissions 40% to 45%; HFC regulations to implement the Montreal protocol; and the pricing backstop, about which, as a side note and contrary to that $30-million misinformation campaign, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer notes that 80% of individuals and families will actually get more money back, meaning that it is the top 20%, the wealthiest and most polluting Canadians, who are going to pay, and even those individuals will pay a very small sum to do their part on the most pressing challenge of our time.

We have also implemented the clean fuel standard; net-zero building codes; incentives for electric vehicles and EV charging stations across the country; public transit investments; infrastructure investments, such as in housing, that factor in the need to upgrade and have retrofits to tackle climate change by reducing building emissions; and clean-tech investments, including strategic innovation fund investments.

We have the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean tech. We have the low carbon economy challenge, part of the low carbon economy fund. That is $2 billion to invest in businesses doing their part to reduce emissions. It also ensures that provinces that are actually doing their part have funds to invest in these renewable energies as well. Of course, there is the food guide and investments in plant-based foods in Saskatchewan.

Are we where we need to be? The answer is no, we are not. It is fair to point out that we are not where we need to be. However, have we made significant and meaningful progress in a very short period of time, when we look at how difficult this issue is and how intractable the opposition from the Conservatives is? Without question we have.

Based on the most recent analysis, we have a 200-million tonne reduction model, based on the measures we are implementing. There are 24 million tonnes to account for forestry. There are 79 million tonnes that are unmodelled.

The opposition members are saying that we are short. Not quite. That is short on modelled measures, but they are not modelling our public transit investments. They are not modelling our clean tech investments. Of the 79 million tonnes we are short on the current targets, yes, we need to do more, but we are not so very far short. We are certainly not short those 79 million tonnes, because we know that certain measures we put in place will make a significant impact. They just cannot be easily modelled.

What more do we need to do? I would say that we are well on the way to meeting the current target, but of course, we know that the 2030 target, and we can call it the Harper target, is itself insufficient. Did it make sense for us to spend a great amount of time in this place over the first three and a half years suggesting that we needed stronger targets, when we had 10 years of complete and total inaction and there was no way we could meet that stronger target? I would say no. The focus should have been on strong action.

We are now at a place where meeting that Harper target is feasible heading toward 2030. We know, though, that it is insufficient. What do we need to do next? The Paris Agreement itself contemplates a ratcheting up of these targets. At the next opportunity, 2020-2021, there will be an opportunity for Canada to attend an international conference and say, alongside other countries, that we are all ratcheting up our targets and holding ourselves more accountable so that we do more. We need to ratchet up our 2030 target at the next opportunity.

We also need to think further ahead, for the sake of our planet. The U.K. climate change committee, an independent advisory committee, recently, at the beginning of this month, called for net zero by 2050. I was recently in Brussels and met the European Commission's director-general for environment. They are also putting materials together calling for net zero by 2050.

We need more ambition here in Canada. We have come a long way. We have made significant and meaningful progress, but now is the time to call it a climate emergency. Now is the time for more ambition. We need stronger 2030 targets, and we need to aim for net zero by 2050. We need strong accountability measures and clear updates on that path to 2050.

Targets are not enough. Not only do we need to ratchet up our targets, we need to strengthen every single step we have taken to date and every single policy measure we have put in place. Therefore, the price on pollution should not stop in 2022. We should build on the investments we have made in retrofits. We should build on the investments we have made in electric vehicle infrastructure. The currently voluntary targets for EVs should in the future probably become mandatory targets.

We can finally say that Canada is a global climate leader and is on the right path. We simply need to double down on our current efforts to get where we need to be to do our part to tackle the most pressing issue of our time. This is an emergency. The Liberal government understands that and is acting as if it is an emergency. I wish every member in the House, regardless of party, would acknowledge that fact and vote to call this an emergency in the coming weeks.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I somewhat admire the hon. member's independence in realizing that it is the government members' job, as it is his job, to hold their own government to account. I have heard the member say that publicly, and I appreciate that stance.

In that light, what is the member's true opinion of the leadership shown by his Prime Minister in using government resources, taxpayer dollars, to fly to Tofino for two days of surfing, then flying to Florida, and I do not begrudge him a vacation, then flying back to Ottawa on his own, in a jet, then flying back to Florida, and the amount of carbon that was created on those trips?

If the Prime Minister is going to lead by example, and if the government is going to lead by example, does the member agree that this was a good way to show leadership on this file?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I truly believe that our individual actions should be consistent with our beliefs, and for that reason, I eat a plant-based diet. One ought to know in this place, as Canadians ought to, that the evidence is clear that if one eats 100 grams of meat a day, one contributes two and a half times more to climate change than if one is on a plant-based diet.

I do not think this is about pointing fingers at anyone. I do not think this is about saying, “Your choices are not as good as mine.” It is simply about saying that flying less and eating less meat makes an incredible difference in reducing our individual emissions.

With respect to the Prime Minister specifically, frankly, I am more concerned about the policy measures the Prime Minister and this government are going to put in place to make sure that we are able to meet our international, intergenerational and moral obligations to tackle climate change, full stop.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Be honest.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the hon. member for Brantford—Brant that he had an opportunity to ask a question without being interrupted, and I would ask him to listen to the answer without interrupting. If he has other things to add, he can stand during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is unhelpful and lacking in courage or ambition for the government to use the standard set by the previous government. Stephen Harper's targets and actions, or inactions, are not really much of a bar to set for a government that came in with a promise and such hopefulness regarding climate change. The member may argue whether it was proper for the government to continue with Stephen Harper's targets, but it is hurt by the fact that the government is not even going to meet those targets, according to the Auditor General.

The Harper government promised not to subsidize oil and gas. It made that promise to the OECD. The current government did the same thing, yet it continues the practice of subsidizing carbon.

Last night, the Senate, at the committee level, rejected Bill C-48, on the north coast tanker ban, which 67% of the members elected to the House voted to pass. This is a question of power between the Senate and the House. When democratically elected members of the House pass a bill like the one on the north coast tanker ban, what is the member willing to do, joining with us, to push back on the unelected house, the Senate, when its members describe a reality and preference that is different from the will expressed by the voters of this country?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will say two things. First, I do not think we should hold ourselves to the same standard as that of Mr. Harper. My point was to make a contrast. We are accused of doing nothing, yet, as Mark Jaccard, professor of sustainability, notes, the record shows that under Harper, we were a “pariah”, and under the Prime Minister, we are considered a “global leader”. It is important to acknowledge the clear difference in direction the country has taken between these two very different governments.

Second, on the question about power between this chamber and the other place, I would say that when a promise is put in a platform, and Canadians vote for a party to implement that promise, and the House passes legislation to implement that promise, it is well out of bounds, based on precedent and the historical interaction between the two chambers, for the Senate to strike such legislation down.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism]

Madam Speaker, as best we can tell, this tiny blue-green planet, Earth, is home to the only life forms in our far-reaching universe. As far as we know, this is it; life only exists here on this one rock orbiting the sun. What a remarkable privilege that is, and what a remarkable and overwhelming responsibility.

Let us consider for a moment, across history and across species, all that had to come together to create the extraordinary conditions for life on Earth: to be suspended just so, between the sun's gravity and the earth's own centrifugal force, with just enough eccentricity of orbit to give us the majesty of the seasons; a magnetic field to protect us from cosmic rays and solar flares; a moon to give us tides; and an atmosphere to retain water and oxygen, the foundational ingredients of life as we know it.

What began three and a half billion years ago as bacteria, no more than single-celled organisms, today walks the earth as you and me and all living things that surround us. It is only here, only on this planet.

Let us consider the astounding breadth of human experience over time, the accomplishments of ingenuity and discovery, the progress we have made, the people loved and lost and every act of bravery, courage and passion. Despite the vastness of the known universe and everything we have accomplished, it happened only here. For us, this could be the end of it.

I am called from the very core of my being, as a life-long environmentalist, to use my voice in today's debate, because if passed, this motion introduced by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will acknowledge and declare beyond any shadow of a doubt what so many Canadians already know, that there is a national climate emergency in Canada. Its approval would also set the Parliament of Canada on course to take the action necessary to meet Canada's emissions targets under the Paris Agreement. I believe this may be the most consequential vote I will ever cast in this place, and I implore my colleagues from all corners of this House to join me in voting yes.

I am a proud son of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada's ocean city. I am also a city planner who spent a career making my city and others more livable, prosperous and sustainable.

I am also a dad to Daisy Isabella Fillmore, a smart and beautiful 12-year-old girl who talks to me every day about our climate and our environment, and who, just last night, sent me a text message saying, “Daddy, can you please pass a bill to ban plastic straws?” Therefore, on her behalf, I am absolutely committed to the biggest fight of our time, and it is largely why I came to this place.

Halifax is perched like a jewel on the east coast of Canada, a city that has been shaped by the sea. While the Atlantic Ocean has always been a tremendous asset, increasingly it is going to become a threat. That is because Halifax has one of the fastest-rising sea levels in the country, and both the frequency and severity of extreme weather events are increasing rapidly. For these reasons, our city itself declared a climate emergency just this past January.

Last year, Globe and Mail reporter Matthew McClearn wrote extensively about this growing threat of sea-level rise, including its impact on Halifax. Here is what a local commercial real estate professional told McClearn when discussing flood risk on our beautiful downtown waterfront:

If you look at the five-metre contour [line], you can see that basically all of the buildings on our waterfront, from the casino right through to Bishop's Landing to the Port of Halifax, all of those buildings—the complete line of them—would be impacted. Perhaps catastrophically.

The outlook is just as troubling for other coastal communities in Canada as well, particularly in our north, which is warming at nearly three times the global rate.

Let us make no mistake, communities in central Canada are far from immune. In the last month alone, floods in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick have had a devastating impact. Here is what CBC's Isaac Olson reported from of Montreal just a few weeks ago:

Annie Pépin's kids were playing outside with her father Saturday as she cleaned the kitchen after supper. Sirens, and the blaring of a police cruiser's loudspeakers, shattered the evening calm.

“Evacuation now! Evacuation now!” she recalled hearing. “I got outside and I looked at my kids and they were screaming and crying. And then everybody was running.”

A 50-metre section of a natural dike holding back the Lake of Two Mountains had been breached in Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac, an off-island suburb northwest of Montreal.

Water immediately began pouring into the town. Witnesses heard trees snapping under the rushing torrent.

Some residents would return days later by kayak and military escort, paddling into their living rooms in waste-deep water to collect pets and belongings and to survey the devastation to their homes and their neighbourhood.

Climate change is real, it is happening and it is happening here.

As members of Parliament, together we represent every corner of this country and every single Canadian. While not every riding borders an ocean or sits downstream from a fragile dike, not a single one of us, not a single one of our constituencies and not a single one of our constituents will be spared the effects of unchecked climate change.

The effects of climate change will be omnipresent. It will create serious national security challenges. Let us consider that this month, as tanks rolled into Ottawa to support residents following the declaration of a state of emergency, there were more troops deployed within Canada than deployed around the world.

Climate change will also create serious public health care challenges. More people will die from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress. Already air pollution causes seven million deaths a year.

Climate change will also create serious international migration challenges. The UN projects that by 2050 there will be at least 200 million climate refugees. Some projections put that number significantly higher, up to a billion. Let us consider that in 2018, the number of refugees worldwide, including Syrian refugees, totalled just 25 million.

Climate change, left unchecked, will have devastating impacts on our economy. Research shows that within four decades the cost of climate change to the Canadian taxpayer will reach between $21 billion and $43 billion annually. Fighting climate change is not just the right thing to do; it is good economic policy, too. The World Bank has estimated that climate change will open up to $23 trillion in clean investment opportunities around the world.

Historically in Canada, provinces with a price on pollution have been shown to be our country's strongest economic performers. In fact, last week we learned that, in the very same month that our government put a price on pollution in Ontario, we had the single-largest job gain on record. So much for that “job-killing carbon tax” the Conservatives warned us about.

On this side of the House, we have been saying it since day one: The environment and the economy go hand in hand. If one does not have a plan for the environment, one does not have a plan for the economy. It has been 382 days since the Conservative leader promised a climate plan, and still we have seen nothing. Last we heard, he promised to release his climate plan next month. I guess we will see. Perhaps he is waiting to get it back from the oil industry lobbyists with whom he recently met in secret. In any case, I will not be holding my breath.

To their credit, my colleagues in the NDP have begun to release parts of their climate plan. Of course, no one can say just how long it will stick. In recent weeks, the NDP leader has been flip-flopping on environmental issues and backtracking on previous positions, including LNG development in B.C. However, it does appear that on this particular issue, the NDP leader has finally arrived at the very firm position of “Well, who knows?” Wishy-washy is not much of a climate plan, either.

As for this team, we have a strong plan to fight climate change, and we are acting on it. It has more than 50 measures, including putting a price on pollution, protecting marine and terrestrial habitat, investing historic amounts in public transit, making electric vehicles and home energy retrofits more affordable, supporting clean technologies and phasing out coal power.

On a personal note, I am quite proud to say that our plan also includes a climate lens on all federally funded infrastructure projects under our investing in Canada plan. This is the result of my private member's motion, Motion No. 45, which I introduced in 2016 and which passed with support from all parties in this House, except the Conservative Party, unfortunately. That is what it will take to rise to the challenge of a national climate emergency: working collaboratively across party lines, regional divides and international borders to secure the political will and to undertake the necessary work to fight climate change tooth and nail.

We are running out of time. The effects of climate change have begun, and we have already lost too much. We learned recently that one million species are at risk of extinction, and climate change is one of the leading causes. It is an important reminder that this is not just about us. We share this place, after all, all of us together on this one planet, the only one in the vast universe known to sustain life. This cannot be how it ends.

I thank Daisy and all my constituents in Halifax for speaking to me so passionately about this.

It is now time to declare a national climate emergency in this country, and get to work.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Auditor General made it clear that 2020 emissions are expected to be nearly 20% above the target rate for the current government. I would like the member to respond to this. He indicated that it was only because this does not include current initiatives and the modelling of what the Liberals are going forward with doing now.

The current government provided five options to the provinces to consider when it met with them initially. Then, when they met again to express what each of the provinces was going to do, the government said that those options were no longer there and the provinces had to pick cap and trade or carbon tax.

Saskatchewan has a Prairie resilience program. It is all outlined. We have the best research on the environment because we need our environment in Saskatchewan. We are working toward what needs to be done. In 10 years, we will cover all of the greenhouse gas emissions of the oil sands in Saskatchewan.

Why did the government decide that working with the provinces did not matter? Is that why Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Alberta and the territories have said no to the carbon tax?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member and her party for this road to Damascus moment. It is really a wonderful thing to see the Conservative Party finally acknowledging that climate change is real and even putting some ink on paper to acknowledge that we have to do something about it. However, the conversion is a little less than it seems to be.

The Conservatives' proposed amendment to the government's climate emergency motion removes the words “climate emergency”. They are simply not acknowledging the work that lies ahead. Our government has undertaken more than 50 measures toward getting our GHGs under control and reaching our international commitments. I welcome the day when the Conservative members will listen to their constituents and join us in this life-and-death fight.