Debates of May 27th, 2019

The Environment

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member regarding the new Coast Guard vessels that were proposed on the weekend.

We have a number of companies in Canada that are creating innovation and technology that is being implemented in Europe. We have a company called Hydrogenics, based out of Mississauga, that is working with the railway system in Europe to make hydrogen locomotives. We have a company in Richmond, Corvus Energy, which is creating an electric ferry system in Norway and Sweden. We have companies like Harbour Air, in Nanaimo, which is taking its fleet of sea planes and making them electric, without any government subsidy.

I am wondering when we will see the Canadian government working with these companies on contracts for things like the Coast Guard vessels that are proposed, so that we could see Coast Guard vessels that are zero emission, that do not emit any greenhouse gases, that use hydrogen? We have all of this technology available to us, and I am wondering if we will be seeing that technology used for the proposed Coast Guard vessels.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question, and I also want to say welcome and congratulations to him on being here.

One thing I mentioned at the top of my speech is one of the reasons I am very excited about this particular motion. Liberals have indicated that not only do we feel we are doing a lot in terms of combatting climate change, but I also think we recognize that we need to do more.

The area that the member mentioned, in terms of influencing innovation within our Coast Guard or different types of vessels across the country, I think is important and is something we should look at. I know it is something I would be interested in looking at. I do not know of any plans right now, but I think that is something we should give due consideration to as we move along.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Davenport for her speech. I really appreciate her honesty. She said that many people criticized the Trans Mountain pipeline purchase. Actually, I think the vast majority of Canadians oppose the Liberal government's purchase of Trans Mountain.

Why do they oppose it? They oppose the Trans Mountain purchase because it flies completely in the face of a policy designed to fight climate change and the shift to renewable energy.

How can she vote in favour of a motion to declare a climate emergency when she continues to support a project that is not at all consistent with a climate change plan, namely the purchase of a $4.3-billion pipeline with taxpayer money? Not to mention that it will cost three of four times that much to twin the pipeline.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think there have been some questions within my riding. I am not afraid of these hard questions and hard discussions within my riding.

Here is what the conversation was about a few nights ago. We talked about how the move to a low-carbon economy is not going to happen overnight. We talked about how, as we move away from the fossil fuel industry and into renewable energy, we have to support our workers and the transition of our different industries.

We also talked about how a pipeline is a safer way of transporting bitumen. We talked about ensuring that as we move forward with a pipeline, there is sufficient demand to build that pipeline.

These are all parts of the conversations that took place. I think there was a very good understanding about the complexity of the decision and why it was that the federal government felt it needed to move forward on that decision.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to be part of the debate we are having this evening on an issue that is very, very important to the constituents of Cloverdale—Langley City and me.

Climate change, I think we all know, is a real and urgent crisis driven by human activity that impacts Canada's environment, biodiversity, health and the economy. The science is clear: Climate change is the greatest challenge of our time and it calls for drastic action. If we follow the path we are on, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise and we will see more and more serious effects from climate change.

ln my own riding, we are already seeing these effects. Every summer, my riding is blanketed with smoke from the fires in the interior of British Columbia and Alberta. This is particularly hazardous to our at-risk populations. Furthermore, reduced summer rainfall has led to strict water restrictions across the Lower Mainland, and appears to be getting worse with each passing summer.

Flooding is also a significant risk for my riding of Cloverdale—Langley City and our surrounding communities. ln fact, the Vancouver Sun in a 2018 article estimates that flooding could affect "1,500 residents, hundreds of jobs, millions in revenue, more than $1 billion in assessed property value and more than $25 billion in truck and rail traffic." This flooding along with other negative effects of climate change will lead to five times higher insurance costs. Further, the loss of biodiversity and the increase in invasive species will have significant negative effects on the beautiful natural spaces that constituents in my riding enjoy.

On a national level, Canada is warming at twice the global rate. This poses significant risks to the health and well-being of communities across Canada. Since 1948, Canada's annual average temperature has warmed by 1.7°C, with even higher temperature forecast of up to 2.3°C in the north, the Prairies and northern British Columbia. According to Canada's changing climate report, if global emissions continue at these high rates, average Canadian temperatures could increase by as much as 6.3°C by 2100.

It is predicted that increased temperatures will result in more high volume precipitation, lower ice levels, rising water levels and harmful effects on our oceans. Even today Canadians are feeling the effects of climate change, with more extreme weather events, longer and more extensive heat waves, fewer cold spells, and thawing permafrost and loss of ice cover earlier than ever before.

We also know that climate change disproportionally affects women. ln developing countries, women farmers account for 45 to 80% of all food production. Climate change has affected traditional food sources and the ability of these women to provide for their families.

Climate change also poses a large threat to indigenous peoples. Arctic local food sources, both wildlife and infrastructure, are significantly threatened. Just last week, Old Crow in the Yukon, a community I have personally had an opportunity to visit, declared a climate change state of emergency. When CBC News interviewed officials in this community, they said that the traditional way of life in Old Crow is under threat from climate change. Chief Tizya-Tramm said that climate change is dramatically altering the landscape of Old Crow, directly putting his people's culture in jeopardy.

This situation is shared across our great country. It is not just the story of Old Crow, but the story of us all. Climate change is the greatest threat to Canada and the world's prosperity.

A recent UN report says that one million species face extinction as a result of climate change. While this report is very saddening, it does have a very small silver lining. We still have time to act, but we have to act now. Fighting climate change and protecting biodiversity go hand and hand. We cannot continue down the path of business as usual. If we want a future for our children, we must take drastic measures to reduce our emissions and fight climate change.

After a decade of inaction by the previous government, we have changed course and adopted policies that will address climate change. We have put a price on pollution in jurisdictions that do not have one so that our kids will have a cleaner and healthier Canada. ln my home province of B.C., we have had a price on pollution for over 10 years now and can see that pollution pricing is an effective policy tool to lower emissions and grow the economy. B.C, is a leader in lowering greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, B.C.'s economy has grown faster than Canada's. Let me remind this House that the B.C. carbon tax was implemented by a centre-right provincial government. ln reality, pollution pricing works. lt proves that we can grow the economy and reduce emissions.

We have also set the goal to conserve 17% of Canada's land and fresh water by the end of 2020. By the end of 2017, we had reached 10.5% of our 17% conservation goal, and over the next two years, Canada is aiming to conserve an additional 650,000 square kilometres of land and fresh water to reach our goal. That is conserving a space nearly the size of the province of Saskatchewan, where I was born and raised. To protect these natural spaces, we have invested $1.3 billion, which is the largest investment in nature conservation efforts in Canadian history.

Further, we are phasing out coal and investing in clean technology, home retrofitting and public transportation.

On a more local level, the Township of Langley received a grant of $119,200 from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the development of a climate change adaptation plan.

Last week, I participated in a public consultation session with constituents in the Township of Langley. lt was well attended with many youth in attendance, who worry not only about their future, but also that of our planet. This is why the climate emergency motion is so important. Canadian youth are worried about climate change.

That is why our government is acting to address climate change with an additional $2 million from the federal gas tax fund. It is being secured for TransLink, to cure congestion and create more accessible transit options for commuters in Cloverdale-Langley City and surrounding communities.

A few days ago, the Prime Minister announced $1.47 billion in funding for 200 new SkyTrain cars to replace aging cars and increase capacity, as well as other improvements through the metro Vancouver region.

A decade of inaction by the previous government led to little protection for fish and waterways, Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol and cuts to Environment Canada. The Conservatives did not have a plan and do not have a plan for the environment. In order to have a plan for the economy, one must have a plan for the environment. If members do not believe me, they just need to walk a few blocks down the street to the Bank of Canada. Recently, it identified climate change as among the top weak spots for the economy and our financial system.

If other parties in the House were truly stewards of the economy, they would address climate change and vote for this motion. However, they may choose to blame others instead of making real progress on this issue, and that would be unfortunate for us all.

We need to take action to support clean growth and meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Declaring that Canada is in a national climate emergency requires that we commit to meeting emission targets under the Paris Agreement, and making deeper reductions in line with the agreement's objective of holding global warming below 2° C and pursuing efforts to keep global warming below 1.5° C.

Recently, I signed the environmental rights charter. I believe that everyone should have the right to a healthy environment, including clean air and water. This motion is the first step in signalling to the rest of the world that climate change is a top priority for Canada and that we will adopt policies that address this imminent threat. We remain committed to climate change and will continue enacting policies that both grow the economy and align with the emission reduction targets of the Paris Agreement.

I have heard others in the House talk about the importance of getting this right and doing it now. I have children. We have heard others speak of the importance of this to Canadian children. That is why I am pleased to rise today and speak in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government motion talks about keeping global warming below 1.5°C, yet this government is buying pipelines and continues to subsidize fossil fuels.

How does the government plan to keep global warming below 1.5°C if it continues to subsidize big oil and build pipelines?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of public policy discussions that we need to continue to have in Canada.

The fossil fuel industry has been an important economic driver in Canada, but we need to start making changes in order to meet those 1.5° C targets. Work is being done to phase out the fossil fuel subsidies.

The recent report by the commissioner of the environment called for even more work to be done in identifying what fully constitutes the range of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and that those need to be addressed.

To the member's question, we need to continue acting on and meeting the targets that have been set for phasing out subsidies to this industry. We need to also recognize the importance that the industry has in Canada's economy. In order to fuel and fund the transition to a clean economy, we have to pay for it somehow. That is where the actions we are taking as a government are helping to grow the economy, but also moving in that transition toward a greener and cleaner economy in Canada.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the member's comments and would love it if he shared how he believes the government is moving to a cleaner, greener economy. I know that his home province of British Columbia was one of the first to bring forward a price on pollution, and we have seen its economy grow faster than any other province's in this country.

I would love his insights because I know that the constituents in the riding of Waterloo are also trying to understand how we can ensure that we do transition to a cleaner, greener economy while purchasing a pipeline and recognizing that we have invested way more than the cost of the pipeline in this clean technology that is creating great jobs. I would love his insights as to what is happening in his home province and how he believes we can make it possible for our our kids and grandkids to have a better future.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, these are the types of discussions we need to continue having on how we can move forward on this transition. It is really important that we take the lessons from what others have done. The investments we are making as a government are one important way of doing the transition.

We are investing money in my home province in things like transit to get people out of their cars and to move in greener ways. I recently read that we have more people in Canada now working in the green economy than in the oil sands. These are the types of investments to develop innovation and pursue research that will help us move forward. Our government is supporting these.

I believe this will help Canada develop the innovation that is needed to work to our advantage as we export that knowledge, technology and know-how internationally. There is lots of work that our government is doing and I am really proud to be part of it and continue what needs to be done.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remember my visit to British Columbia, where it was amazing to see the new technologies being advanced, especially by small businesses and startups there. Could the member highlight one or two of those businesses that can provide solutions for Canadians and the rest of the world?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City in 30 seconds or less, please.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can limit my comments to 30 seconds or less for all the great work that is happening in British Columbia and in my community.

One of the really interesting things happening in a couple of areas in B.C. is carbon capture. There is some great work being done on the whole field of carbon capture where we can take carbon from the air and store it. It can be used, and it is a really innovative way of dealing with the issue of carbon in our atmosphere.

There are lots of things happening and companies are investing in them. This is technology and know-how that can be used in many other—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

May 27, 2019

The Honourable

The Speaker of the House of Commons

Ottawa

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Julie Payette, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the schedule to this letter on the 27th day of May, 2019 at 1:37 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Assunta Di Lorenzo

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The schedule indicates that the bills assented to were Bill C-85, An Act to amend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, Bill S-6, An Act to implement the Convention between Canada and the Republic of Madagascar for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to speak this evening in this very important debate about the future of our country and our planet and, of course, the impact of climate change.

First, let me pay my respects to the new member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. I cannot say whether he is here or not, but I can recall that he made his first entrance into the House of Commons at 2:16 p.m. as a new member of Parliament. I wish him the best.

I know that his mandate will be short, only four weeks, but I am sure he will appreciate it. The people will then decide in 150 days from now if he will maintain his job. I can assure him that the Conservative Party of Canada will have a strong candidate against him, but he should not take it personally.

The reason I salute the arrival of the new member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith today is that it is a perfect illustration of why we are gathered here this evening to debate a government motion on climate change. Against all odds, the Green Party won the byelection, and the next day, the Liberal members and ministers said this proved that the environment is important. However, this vote was also a judgment on the ruling Liberal Party. The Liberals came not first, or second, or third, but fourth. That is the message that the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith sent the government. They do not trust it to handle environmental matters.

That is understandable, because the motion moved today is completely non-binding and fails to reflect the real facts, namely that this government has done absolutely nothing positive or constructive to improve the situation in the past three and a half years. On the contrary, the only solution it has come up with is to tax Canadians and send $4.5 billion of taxpayer money to Houston. More on that later.

Since we believe that the government's motion was not strong enough and, more importantly, it did not contain any binding elements that would force the government to take immediate action, the member for Abbotsford, my distinguished colleague from British Columbia, whom I, like all members of the House, hold in high esteem, presented an amendment in which we repeat the most important words from the original motion. Before I read it, I would like to remind the House that my colleague is also the Conservative environment critic. Everyone in the House has the utmost respect for this man, who has served his constituents in the House for over 10 years and who held very high positions in the previous government, including that of international trade minister. He is the one behind some of the trade agreements that we have today with a number of European and Asian countries. That said, here is our motion:

That the House recognize that:

(a) climate change is a real and urgent global problem requiring real global solutions...

(b) human activity has an impact on climate change....

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

...the House call upon the government to produce a real climate change plan that will enable Canada to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions...

Who could be against the facts?

The amendment moved by my colleague from Abbotsford goes to the heart of the debate. We recognize the reality, we recognize that we must take action, we recognize that human activity has an impact, and we are calling on the government to introduce an action plan.

We are therefore confident that this government will support the motion, which is straightforward and, most importantly, shows that the Liberals have missed the mark and that all their measures have not led to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

In that regard, I am always happy to remind the House and all Canadians that greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by more than 2% under the leadership of previous Conservative governments. I am not the one saying so. It is right here in this document, which I would be pleased to table after my speech with the consent of the House, naturally. I am confident and certain that my colleagues will agree. I have tried to table this document about 300 times in the past three years. Perhaps they will agree this time. This is a document from Natural Resources Canada, and it shows that between 2005 and 2015, when we were in power, greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by 2.2%. What has the current government done? In the past few years, it has imposed the Liberal carbon tax.

One fine morning, the Prime Minister rose in the House and said he would be negotiating with the provinces and proposing an action plan. “Negotiating” is one way of putting it. The provinces were told that if they did not set up a carbon exchange or implement a carbon tax, the feds would slap their own carbon tax on them. That is not exactly a positive, constructive, progressive approach to negotiation. It is telling the other provinces what to do, and if they do otherwise, the government forces its tax on them.

That is exactly what happened. The Liberals proposed the Liberal carbon tax, which came into effect on April 1. The tax is having a direct impact on taxpayers' wallets but no impact on greenhouse gas emissions. I will come back to that later.

First, I would like to underscore the glaring hypocrisy of the Liberal tax. The Liberals make a lot of noise about their lofty principles and putting a price on pollution. What pollution is that, exactly? Big polluters are exempt from the Liberal carbon tax.

I had a wonderful day last Friday with my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and my constituents. My constituents do not understand when I tell them that the big polluters are not subject to the carbon tax. Why does a humble business owner in an industrial park have to pay the Liberal carbon tax, while a major polluter does not?

This is the hypocrisy of the carbon tax. The government did everything it could to hide emails. I remind members that our government asked public servants to analyze the real cost of the tax. This analysis was released on October 20, 2015. “Released” is a big word. I cannot show the document I have here, but if I could, you could see that it is heavily redacted. The document in question, dated October 20, 2015, the day after the election, says that the memo focuses on the potential impact of the carbon price on households' consumption expenditures across the income distribution. This is exactly what we want to know. It then goes on to share the findings, but those are completely redacted. The government is hiding the main findings. People hide information when they are not confident. That is what happened with the Liberal carbon tax.

As I said earlier, on top of the Liberal carbon tax, the government took $4.5 billion from taxpayers. It could have used that money to invest in renewable energy or in research and development, or to help businesses reduce their carbon footprint. Instead, the Liberal government took $4.5 billion in taxpayers' money and sent it to Houston to buy a pipeline. That is what people do not understand.

How can this government brag about its lofty environmental principles on the one hand, while taking money out of taxpayers' pockets and sending it to Houston on the other hand? That makes no sense. It is insulting to anyone who believes in developing our natural resources in harmony with environmental initiatives. We believe that the Liberal carbon tax is completely off the mark. It is being imposed on people who do not want it. That is not good.

It is clear that imposing a carbon tax will not reduce greenhouse gases. It is not an economist or a forecaster saying so. The facts speak for themselves. Quebec has a carbon exchange system. I know what I am talking about, because I was a member of the National Assembly when it passed. We have a real example, not a hypothetical one or a study. Quebec has had a carbon exchange, which is a way of taxing pollution, for the past five years. In fact, the Prime Minister even said a choice had to be made between a carbon exchange and a carbon tax. It was one or the other. The goal is the same.

What is the real, concrete, scientifically calculated and proven result? We have the result. On November 29, at the National Assembly, the newly elected Premier rose and tabled the document that I have here in my hands. Again, I cannot show it to members, but it is entitled “Inventaire québécois des émissions de gaz à effet de serre en 2016 et leur évolution depuis 1990 — GES 1990-2016”. What did we learn from this document created by Quebec's department of the environment and tabled by the Premier of Quebec at the National Assembly on November 29? We learned that for 2014, 2015, and 2016, the first years that the carbon exchange was fully in place, greenhouse gas emissions did not go down. They increased—minimally, admit, by 0.1%, but they did not decrease.

This proves that imposing a tax or a carbon price is not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If the primary objective of the Liberal carbon tax is in fact to ensure that we have a healthier environment and less greenhouse gas emissions, those who say that the tax is effective are not telling us the real story. I am not talking about studies done by any Tom, Dick or Harry. I am talking about a study done by the Quebec department of the environment on the reality of the carbon exchange here in Canada, in the Province of Quebec. Taxing pollution does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Those are not my words, but those of the Quebec department of the environment.

In fact, I still think that is a shame. The government is playing politics, and I should know. Seriously though, I have asked the government to table this document at least 15 times, and the Liberals unfortunately keep refusing. This is why we the Conservatives have a different approach. The Liberals want to impose taxes and we want to provide assistance. In the coming weeks, the Leader of the Opposition will present the Conservatives' environment plan. Three weeks ago, 800 federal Conservatives from across Quebec gathered for a rally in Victoriaville. They came together thanks to the extraordinary leadership of the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, our political lieutenant. We introduced 58 candidates out of the 78 ridings. Several more have joined since then, and more will be announced soon. I do not want to give anything away, but you may find a hint in the papers.

At this event, when our party was gathered in Quebec, our leader gave a speech announcing several elements that will guide our actions if we are fortunate enough to win Canadians' trust 150 days from now. Our environmental plan will be based on three elements. First, we will help Canadians lower their greenhouse gas emissions. Second, we will make sure our plan is really concrete and is applied in a way that is positive for everyone. That means getting back into research and development. Lastly, we will export Canadian expertise. Those are the three main thrusts of our plan.

The Liberals want to tax, whereas we want to help. We want to help Canadians, businesses, provinces and municipalities reduce their environmental footprint. We have already unveiled the beginnings of that initiative. In January, speaking in Montreal, our leader announced that he will be working with cities to minimize sewage dumps into rivers like the St. Lawrence. It is all well and good to say that the environment and rivers are important, but dumping billions of litres of sewage into the St. Lawrence does not help the cause one bit.

Some may recall that while certain people were in Montreal lecturing Canada about the environment, a massive dump was in progress, sending millions of litres of filthy sewage into the St. Lawrence.

The three main components of our plan will be to help Canadians reduce their consumption, to focus on research and development, and to export Canadian expertise. I am thinking of expertise in areas like hydroelectricity, which has been proudly developed in Quebec over the past 75 years with some major projects. It started in the 1950s with the Bersimis power station and continued into the 1960s with the Manic station, the 1970s with the James Bay station, and the 2000s with the Romaine station.

Thanks to all these major projects, Quebec can be very proud of the hydroelectricity it generates. We need to seize this golden opportunity to export that knowledge.

Our plan goes beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions by helping Canadians in their daily lives; it also includes what we call the energy corridor. We have been working on that for some time now. I was really looking forward to seeing the future prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition, make our plan public so that we could finally talk about it.

That will be a real, true nation-building project. This is so exciting for me. It is so great for Canadians. We need to do that. For the future of this country, we need to do that.

This corridor would enable us to use electricity from Quebec everywhere in Canada. We could transport natural resources from Alberta and western Canada all across Canada. That is a win-win situation.

This 500-metre or one-kilometre corridor will go through Canada's north, where it would have social licence because we will have the support of the first nations. They will be partners in Canada's prosperity. This is an exciting project.

Canada could get its electricity from Quebec. Quebec will have a golden opportunity to provide electricity to any Canadian province it wants.

We will also allow our natural resources from Alberta and Saskatchewan to be exported to markets in eastern Canada. That is precisely what people want.

I already hear people saying that Quebec does not want a pipeline. In Quebec, there have been pipelines since 1942, long before Alberta's oil boom of February 14, 1947. In Quebec, there are 2,000 kilometres of pipelines as well as nine pipelines under the St. Lawrence. In 2012, Quebec launched a brand-new pipeline from Lévis to Montreal. That is 248 kilometres of pipeline passing through nearly 630 lots and 26 waterways, including the St. Lawrence. It works so well that no one talks about it and no one knows about it.

We are capable of doing things the right way. That is exactly what the Conservatives want to do. We will be able to ensure economic prosperity and at the same time develop our natural resources in an appropriate and sound manner, while meeting our climate change responsibilities by helping Canadians, municipalities, cities, the provinces and businesses reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, by focusing on research and development and by exporting Canadian know-how and expertise.

I hope that the government realizes the value of the amendments moved by the member for Abbotsford. I am certain that it will vote for our amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have one minute and 40 seconds to finish his speech when we resume consideration of this motion. There will also be 10 minutes for questions and comments.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Natural Resources

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to speak about the environment. On February 1, I asked the Liberal government a question regarding the scathing report tabled by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which confirmed what Canadians were thinking all along: the Liberals' purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline was not a good decision.

In addition to making this bad decision, the Liberals overpaid for this aging infrastructure that will only lose value. They invested $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money in obsolete technology, in yesterday's energy. That is the complete opposite of what we need to do to fight climate change, which is to stop subsidizing fossil fuel, as scientists in Canada and around the world are calling for.

The Conservatives like to make claims about environmentalists, which I think is shameful. They forget that environmentalists are not the only ones saying we need to tackle climate change. Every scientist out there, including those in fields such as health and biology, is saying it, so we need to pay attention. We cannot just say lobbyists and interest groups are the only ones who want us to fight climate change. The truth is that this is a scientific fact.

All those people say we need to stop subsidizing oil and gas companies, and what do the Liberals do? Unfortunately, they follow in the Conservatives' footsteps. They keep subsidizing oil and gas companies to the tune of some $2 billion per year, and they bought the Trans Mountain pipeline.

As the Conservatives said earlier, their party wants to move forward. They want to develop what they call an energy corridor. They use that term to make it sound like something good, but what it really means is that they want to build more pipelines and resurrect energy east, an idea the Liberals have not discarded either, actually. That is very worrisome because it flies in the face of Canadians' desire to fight climate change.

Speaking of the environment, I would like to recognize the excellent work of the Saint-Joseph citizens' committee in Drummondville. They have a clean and green neighbourhood project that involves organizing events to raise awareness of the importance of keeping their neighbourhood clean. I commend the residents of this vibrant community and Guillaume Pariseau, chair of the Saint-Joseph citizens' committee, for their excellent work. This is just one example of the wonderful initiatives being undertaken by the people of Drummond, who are doing their part to fight pollution, improve our well-being and help save the environment.

In that respect, we have begun proposing a plan to fight climate change. That plan will continue to be unveiled over the coming weeks. It includes an energy efficiency retrofit program to help fight climate change. Such a program used to exist, but unfortunately the Conservatives cut it and the Liberals did not bring it back, even though it was extremely useful. It worked and was very popular with Canadians. I would like to remind members that buildings are the third-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. This program would help Canadians save money, have more energy efficient buildings and fight climate change.

Why did the government not make a plan like that and why is it continuing to subsidize fossil fuels, for example by purchasing the Trans Mountain pipeline?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Youth Economic Opportunity)]

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member for Drummond that the purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline and related assets from Kinder Morgan was a sound investment. The investment builds on our commitment to support Canadians and their communities. It is one of the many investments our government is making to protect well-paying jobs that help strengthen and grow the middle class, that help get Canada's resources to world markets and that deliver economic benefits for all Canadians now and for years to come.

The purchase is a good example of a solid investment that will benefit Canadians. We are moving forward with the Trans Mountain expansion project in the right way, with meaningful consultations with indigenous peoples.

If approved, the twinning of the existing Trans Mountain oil pipeline and expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal would help ensure that we are able to safely get Canadian oil resources to world markets and allow producers to receive a better price for their products. That growth will allow us to invest more in Canadians and the things that matter to them, like healthier and more livable communities.

The core Trans Mountain assets also have significant commercial value. The assets include the existing pipeline, pumping stations and rights of way along the route between Edmonton and Vancouver as well as related tank terminals, the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby and the pipeline to Puget Sound.

Our government believes that protecting the environment and safeguarding the oceans, growing the economy through investment and respecting indigenous rights are not mutually exclusive. No relationship is more important to our government than the relationship with indigenous peoples. The government's goal is to move this expansion project forward to create economic benefits for them and for all Canadians.

These are shared priorities, and it is our government's job to bring them together in a way that benefits all Canadians. That is exactly what we have done. That is why we have introduced a world-leading oceans protection plan to make our oceans cleaner, safer and healthier for generations to come. We believe that this is the best way to protect thousands of good, well-paying jobs and the safest and most effective way to get Canadian oil to world markets.

When we are faced with exceptional challenges that put jobs at risk and put our international reputation on the line, our government is prepared to take action in a way that turns these challenges into opportunities. With the Trans Mountain purchase, we are making these opportunities a reality.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the fact that the Union des municipalités du Québec is calling on this government to do more to tackle climate change. There is still no policy direction for municipalities, which is essential given that municipalities are at the forefront of the fight against climate change.

The government spent $4.3 billion and nearly $10 billion on top of that to buy an old pipeline, which is an energy source and technology of the past. Those billions of dollars could have been invested in our municipalities, which need to adapt in order to tackle climate change and deal with flooding and forest fires.

Why did the government decide to buy an old pipeline instead of investing in our municipalities?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said before, our government has full confidence in our energy sector. We will help move the Trans Mountain project forward properly as we protect our environment and hold constructive consultations with indigenous peoples.

Our government chose to acquire the Trans Mountain pipeline and related assets because it is a sound investment. If approved, as we have said before, we will work toward transferring the pipeline and related assets to a new owner or owners in a way that ensures that the project's construction and operation will proceed in a manner that protects the public interest.

Government Contracts

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to follow up on a question that was asked some time ago.

Just for context, the original question had to do with an SNC-Lavalin executive who was convicted of having been part of a major fraud scandal that involved funnelling money into the coffers of the Liberal Party of Canada. It was only a day or two after I asked this question in the House that The Globe and Mail broke a story about allegations of inappropriate political pressure coming out of the Prime Minister's Office on the attorney general of the day in order to drop criminal charges in favour of a DPA for SNC-Lavalin. There has been a lot of water under the bridge since that question was initially asked.

Given all the context and the history we have seen over the last number of months on the SNC file and the fact that the government has still refused to say that it will not give a deferred prosecution agreement and given everything that has happened, it makes perfect sense for the government to say that until there has been a public inquiry into the allegations of political interference by the PMO into the SNC-Lavalin affair, it will not grant a deferred prosecution agreement to that company.

As I said, when I originally asked the question, it had to do with an SNC-Lavalin executive who broke the fundraising rules. A lot has happened on that file since. I think Canadians would find it reassuring to hear the government say that until there has been a proper independent public inquiry into what went on in that case, a deferred prosecution agreement will not be granted. Will the government make that commitment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to reiterate our government's priority on protecting the integrity of our public programs and services. Our department, Public Services and Procurement, is the central purchasing agent and real property manager on behalf of other departments and agencies. Our department is deeply committed to protecting the integrity of the federal procurement process and all of the other processes for which we are responsible. There is nothing more important than maintaining the trust of Canadians.

Fraud, collusion and corruption have absolutely no place in the public sphere. That is why Public Services and Procurement Canada has a rigorous framework around prevention, detection and enforcement. It is firmly based on the values of fairness, transparency and accountability and is focused on delivering real results for all Canadians.

For instance, there is a code of conduct for procurement which clearly outlines expectations as well as roles and responsibilities for both suppliers and public servants.

In addition, we have a fairness monitoring program, one of a range of tools used by the government to support the integrity of the procurement process. The program engages independent impartial third parties to observe high-value, highly sensitive and complex procurements. The oversight helps to assure all parties that activities are being conducted fairly. Final reports from fairness monitors are of course posted on the Internet.

A key piece of the framework was introduced in 2015 when PSPC put in place a government-wide integrity regime, which aims to ensure that the government does business with ethical suppliers in Canada and abroad. As part of this work, PSPC conducts more than 20,000 integrity verifications annually on contracts and real property transactions. That is one of the ways we hold suppliers accountable for wrongdoing and ensure that the rules are applied consistently across government.

Under this regime, instead of a suspension, the department can enter into an administrative agreement with a supplier that has run afoul of the regime. The agreement stipulates the conditions that the supplier must fulfill to maintain its status to be awarded federal contracts. Among other things, these may include remedial measures and regular reporting on progress and compliance. The names of those suppliers are published on the department's website.

As my colleague opposite knows, SNC-Lavalin entered into an administrative agreement with the department in December 2015 and, as such, the corporation may be awarded contracts as long as it follows a very stringent corporate compliance regime. It must demonstrate strong oversight to protect innocent third parties, such as pensioners and employees, from financial harm.

Canadians should know that we monitor these agreements closely to ensure that all of the requirements are met. Our integrity regime is robust, and I assure my colleague that we continue to look for opportunities to strengthen our measures designed to deter and manage corporate wrongdoing.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the importance of Canadians having a sense of trust in the processes that govern procurement, to be sure, but also in our justice system. I think it would be really bad for Canadians' confidence in our judicial system if, given everything that has happened on the SNC-Lavalin file, SNC-Lavalin were to be granted a DPA by the government before a full independent review of what happened in that case, with findings that exonerate the government from allegations of public interference.

I would like to give the parliamentary secretary another chance to let Canadians know that his government will not grant a DPA to SNC-Lavalin prior to an independent, full review of what went on with regard to the allegations of political interference that concludes there was no political interference.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Public Services and Procurement does not grant deferred prosecution agreements. We implement very solemnly the administrative arrangements that we currently have, taking that responsibility very seriously. Our integrity regime is one of the most stringent in the world, and we will safeguard the public trust and uphold the values of fairness, transparency and accountability in contracting right across the government.

While we have a good system, our government is committed to making it even better. In the meantime, the member can rest assured that we will continue to apply the highest ethical standards in all that we do.