Debates of May 27th, 2019

The Environment

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, my riding is predominantly a rural riding, so when my colleague gives accounts that he has heard from farmers in his riding, it is exactly the way he says it. I have seen those same bills. For anyone who is drying grain and carrying on with the farm practices we have, the cost is huge. When I think back 35 years ago when I was farming, our practices have changed. We have brought forward modern agricultural practices that are much better for our environment than they ever used to be. Farmers have been told and shown how modern practices can make a difference in their yields, and it has, so farmers have done that.

What my colleague said in his speech is a very good insight that I would encourage the Liberals to listen to. Regarding the cash advance that the Liberals have talked about so much and have yet to get out to the farmers, my colleague nailed it on the head when he said that money is paid back when crops are taken in and sold in the fall. Then he pointed out that we do not have that market back. What happens if our canola is not sold in the fall? Now the Liberals are going to pile onto many of our farmers a significant problem as far as credit rating and other things go.

I know my colleague is very in touch with the rural and agricultural sector. Could he enlarge a bit on that, and also on his thoughts on what farmers have done already to help our climate and environmental program?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

For the members who want to ask questions, if they are asking for a response, I would ask them to try to keep their preamble short enough to get to the question.

The hon. member for Foothills.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot knows this industry as well as anyone, and he is exactly right.

A recent study by CropLife showed that Canadian agriculture has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by close to 10 million tonnes, by doing things like zero tilling, getting away from summer fallow, and 200-million litres less in diesel fuel. These are things that the Canadian agriculture sector has done on its own. Our farmers are the best stewards of our land, and they have improved their own carbon footprint substantially. They have not done this by pressure from the government. They have done this because they love the land and this is something they truly believe in. They grow more food on less land with a smaller carbon footprint, and if anything, they should be getting credit for that, not punished for it through a carbon tax.

My colleague mentioned the advance payment program. That is not a grant. That is a loan that borrowers have to pay back within 18 months. How are they going to pay that back if they cannot sell the commodity that the Liberal government's failed foreign policies have cost them?

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

Madam Speaker, I too want to pick up on the point that at the end of the day, we have within this chamber and among countries around the world, substantial support for the idea of a price on pollution. The Conservative Party in the House is the only political party that does not believe there is a need for a price on pollution. We see other countries around the world that have adopted a price on pollution as one of the ways in which we can have a significant positive impact on our world and our environment, yet the Conservative Party has gone out of its way to spread misinformation. A majority of the constituents I represent will be financially better off as a direct result of a price on pollution. That is something that comes from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, not from the Liberals, but from an independent office.

Would it be that member's intent or the Conservative Party's intent to take away that aspect of the rebate?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, we would not take away the rebate, we would repeal the carbon tax, so there would be no reason for a rebate. The member says that other countries around the world support the carbon tax, but other countries such as Australia and France have removed their carbon tax. It is not revenue neutral, as British Columbia has proven, which is the one that the Liberals like to tout as the proof. It is not revenue neutral.

This is the diametrical difference between the Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals are likely to think that academics support the carbon tax. They should be talking to real Canadians on the ground, the vast majority of whom do not support a carbon tax. They understand that taxing them will not resolve this problem, especially when the burden is on small businesses, farmers and manufacturers who do not get a carbon tax rebate.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, we should remember why we are studying a motion concerning the climate emergency today. Before the government moved this motion, the NDP moved a motion to declare a climate emergency and to take action.

First, we must stop subsidizing the oil and gas industry. Next, we must stop purchases related to Trans Mountain. Finally, we must reconsider the decision to buy this pipeline. That is what we need to do with respect to the climate emergency.

The motion on the climate emergency before us today does not propose any measures. The Liberals are actually proposing to adopt the same measures and the same 2030 targets that Stephen Harper's government did.

I just wanted to mention that this debate on climate emergency is an NDP initiative.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is not much of a question, but I will agree with my NDP colleague that the Liberals should never have bought the Trans Mountain pipeline. It was a waste of $4.5 billion in Canadian taxpayers' money. They are now stuck with it, and it may or may not ever get built.

The New Democratic Party's solution is to not support any fossil fuel development. Every study in the world says that the demand for fossil fuel is going up over the next 50 to 100 years.

The oil and gas is coming from somewhere, and if we just shut down our industry, which the Liberals and the NDP would like to happen, it is going to come from other sources, such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, that are using technology and natural resource development that is nowhere near the environmental and human rights standards here in Canada. We do it better than anyone else in the world, so we should be energy self-sufficient by 2030. That will address our global GHG targets.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Drummond, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, Government Contracts.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to our government's motion about climate change, brought forward by the hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

I applaud the minister for bringing forward the motion. I and my constituents know that climate change and its effect on the environment is the most pressing issue facing our planet, as do the courts of the country. About three weeks ago, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal called it an “existential threat”.

This motion declares, rightfully, that Canada is in a national climate emergency and it should be supported in a non-partisan manner by every member of the chamber.

We know that climate change is real and that it is a product of human activity. We understand the urgency of the situation, an urgency that was underscored by the IPCC report released in October 2018, which prompted an emergency debate in this chamber. We know from that report that we have 11 years to limit a climate change catastrophe. A recent report from officials within the Government of Canada at Environment and Climate Change Canada tells us that Canada is actually warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, and I will return to this point later. Therefore, urgent change is needed to limit the risk of extreme weather events, some of which we have already begun to see happen at home and around the world, and the repercussions that follow them.

These repercussions are many. They can range from extreme poverty to an impact on the physical health of Canadians to even the movement of people with respect to fuelling a migrant crisis. The motion before the House is about that. It is about addressing these situations, and this needs to be done as a matter of urgency.

The motion also acknowledges the fact that climate change especially impacts coastal, northern and indigenous communities. These groups are often the first to experience the effects of climate change because of the heavy reliance on the lands they live on in order to sustain themselves. Whether it is the alteration of animal migration routes, the dwindling numbers of certain species of animals in provinces like B.C., Alberta and the territories, such as moose or caribou, or the degradation of habitat in coastal communities leading to marine ecosystems disappearing, these communities on the front line of climate change feel the brunt of its devastating effects.

Since 2015, our government has consistently invested in measures that will shore up protections against climate change. We have invested $500 million in the Canada nature fund, which is available to the provinces, territories, not-for-profits, corporate and other partners, that allow us to secure private lands, support environmental species protection efforts and help build indigenous capacity to conserve land and species.

We have invested $1.5 billion in the oceans protections plan, the largest of its kind in the world, helping to restore marine ecosystems and creating innovative cleanup methods. As well, we have made a $1.4 billion investment in the low carbon economy leadership fund which will support clean growth and reduce greenhouse gases.

We are putting this money on the table and co-operating with provinces that want to co-operate. We have made that funding available to municipalities, universities, schools, hospitals and organizations even where provincial governments do not want to co-operate with the low carbon economy leadership fund initiative. I am speaking specifically about the province I represent in the chamber. The government of Doug Ford has clearly stepped out of the battle against climate change, which I will address later on in my comments.

In last year's budget, we also invested $1.3 billion for land conservation, the largest such investment in Canadian history, which will more than double the amount of protected areas in the country.

There are $20 million to support a pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.

Also, Bill C-69 is geared at addressing the environmental assessment system and ensuring that consultation with indigenous communities is at the forefront, as well as protecting our marine species and waterways when we are considering energy projects.

However, members on this side of the aisle are under no illusions, and I will be crystal clear on this. We know that despite the initiatives I have mentioned, despite the real progress we have made, there is still much more to be done to ensure a cleaner future for our children and our grandchildren. The motion recognizes this.

The motion talks about working harder to meet the emission targets under the Paris climate agreement. It also talks about making even deeper reductions in line with the effort to keep global warming below 1.5° C. I have heard about this in my riding, in Toronto, in Ontario and throughout the country in the travel I have undertaken for my parliamentary duties.

I have heard it in my riding from entities such as Green 13 and the Greenest City. I have heard that from significant stakeholders like environmental defence and the leadership of Keith Brooks. I have heard that from people like Catherine Abreu at Climate Action Network. They are saying that the writing is on the wall and we need more ambition. This motion addresses the need for more ambition.

The single most important step is the economic step that was raised in the previous contribution to this debate about putting a price on pollution. Therefore, let me say a few things about the price on pollution.

First, this was initiated by Stéphane Dion when he was the leader of the Liberal Party back in 2008. Then it was vilified as a green shift and a completely abhorrent policy by then leader Stephen Harper. That was inaccurate then and it remains inaccurate now. Unfortunately, the vilification continues with inaccuracies, untruths and outright falsehoods being propagated about this policy. Let us list them, because they are numerous.

First, we are working on a policy that came into place in January against businesses. The plan does include businesses. This is falsehood number one which has been perpetrated by the side opposite.

Second, it is a very basic concept that pollution should not be free. When it is free, we have more of it. When it is not free, we have less of it. The logic is that simple. Basically, elementary kids understand it. They are the kids who are leaving schools on Fridays for Future because they are trying to convince adults, some of whom are in this chamber, about that very simple logic.

Another important aspect is that it has somehow been labelled as a tax. I am trying not to be a constitutional lawyer about this, but allow me one point here. A tax is something collected that goes to general revenue. It is money collected through something like a GST that can be spent on streetcars in Toronto or bridges in Halifax. It is spent as the government of the day sees fit.

A regulatory charge is revenue neutral. One collects money, attributes it and spends all of it on one particular program. That is exactly what this is. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal found exactly that. This is a revenue neutral regulatory charge. I am stupefied by the inability of the members opposite to grasp this, because they voted on this issue and it is entrenched in the bill. They did not support it, but hopefully they would have read it.

Fourth is that no one is getting anything back. That is just false on its face. There is something called a climate action rebate incentive that is being returned to people. It is $307 for a family of four in Ontario. It is larger in places that are more rural. In fact, there is even a rural top-up. Money is going back into people's pockets. It is not being taken from them. Eighty per cent of people in the country will be better off because of this process. It is a process that has been shown to work. Where has it been shown to work? Places like British Columbia have had this process in place for the longest amount of time.

This is one that I absolutely adore, that we do not have the jurisdiction to act. Again, let us take it back to that grade three elementary logic. Air pollution and water pollution traverse provincial borders. Ergo, the national government has jurisdiction to act. That is exactly what we are doing. That is exactly what the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal validated.

What I find most troubling is that underpinning all of this is some sort of skewed logic. When one goes to the climate change conference, which I did in Poland last year, one sees the United Nations literally begging the nation states of the world to take action on what is not just a national problem; it is an international problem. Nevertheless people like Jason Kenney, Scott Moe, Brian Pallister and Doug Ford are saying that the Government of Canada does not have the jurisdiction to act. That is false on its face. It has been shown to be false in law. It is also fallacious logic and it is unbecoming of people in the chamber to perpetuate it.

All of this information is readily available to discerning people. We try not to patronize, but try to elevate the level of debate, not only for the people in the chamber but for Canadians who can grasp these issues.

Some of those Canadians are stakeholders in my riding. I want to outline some of the important advocacy they have done, like Cycle Toronto that advocates for active transport. We have delivered that with more bike share stations. There are people in organizations like Roncy Reduces in my riding. It talks about addressing the need for plastics by curbing the demand for plastics and by encouraging people to take things like Tupperware into stores in Roncesvalles Village so they are not using styrofoam containers. That is leadership and it starts at the grassroots level. It is organizations like Roncy Reduces. It is organizations like Cycle Toronto. Organizations like Green 13, Green Parkdale and the Greenest City are pushing this forward. They are educating me. They are educating other parliamentarians. They are educating all of us, of all ages to get tough with this issue. It is an existential threat. We need to call it an emergency because that is what it is.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a procedural question for my friend. He is very much into making arguments about technical details. He knows we are in the House having a debate about a motion that would make no legislative change whatsoever and responds to a political emergency the government faces, which is that it saw the Green Party win a by-election.

Meanwhile, while the government is proposing a non-binding motion, with no legislative impact whatsoever, as opposed to proposing legislation that could address the issues it says it is concerned about, it is increasing taxes on everyday Canadians as part of its environmental plan, while giving subsidies to other Canadians who are supposedly doing very well in the name of the environment.

I have a two-part question.

First, why is the government not proposing legislation to respond to this issue as opposed to feeling the need to spend all this House time on a motion?

Second, why is it always everyday Canadians who have to pay more and well-connected and already successful businesses that pay less as a result of the environment? Why can it not be the other way around?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are four points to which I will respond.

First, it is not a crisis when somebody from the Green Party gets elected. It shows the political culture in the country is maturing to the point where everyday Canadians are recognizing what the Green Party has known for a long time.

Second, it is fallacious to say that we are increasing taxes. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is a man of considerable intellect, and we know that by the contributions he makes in the chamber. This, again, is a revenue neutral regulatory charge; it is not a tax. He should read the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision.

With respect to enacting legislation, we have already done that. That is the legislation I urge him to read. It stipulates that the matter is revenue neutral.

The fact that businesses are somehow getting off from their responsibility is fallacious on its face. It is called the output based pricing system. It went into effect four months prior to the individual charges being levied on fuel. It compels polluters to reduce their pollution on pain of financial punishment. Therefore, the levers for businesses that are large polluters are already in this package.

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

Madam Speaker, the first three points in the motion we are debating today essentially say, “oh, my God, we need to do something”. The fourth point also says we need to do something, but what? There are absolutely no specifics. There are no tangible measures to meet objectives, nor is there a date. There is nothing. What is the point of a motion that says absolutely nothing, other than, “oh, my God, we need to do something”? We moved another motion that set objectives and that was much more concrete.

Did the Liberals feel left out when the NDP moved a motion, so they decided they should say something as well?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

As I pointed out in my speech, we have already invested in land conservation and green energy.

What I have not yet said is that we have also invested $20 million in public transit and $20 million in green infrastructure. We are making investments, we are putting a price on pollution and we are proposing this important motion. It means something to use a word like “emergency” in a motion.

Emergency is used to describe what is actually happening to the country and the planet. That is why the motion is complementary to all the other initiatives but equally important, because of the symbolic use of that language to emphasize the point that needs to be made in the chamber.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, during my colleague's speech today, we heard many times the little catchphrase “price on pollution”, and many of his colleagues are using this phrase over and over again.

How much was the price of pollution for the eight billion litres of raw sewage that was dumped in the St. Lawrence River in November of 2015, or the 160 million litres of raw sewage that went in from the city of Longueuil or for the 46 million litres of raw sewage that Quebec City released into the St. Lawrence River in February of 2018? I do not recall any price on pollution for those misdemeanours. Could my colleague enlighten us on that?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kitchener—Conestoga raises a very important point. No one in this chamber would stand and defend the sewage dumping that occurred in those three locations. That is a tragedy for the marine ecosystem and for Canada at large.

I would emphasize that we need to be more cognizant of those kinds of situations. I would also emphasize the investments we are making in green infrastructure, including sewage and waste water treatment facilities. That is a significant component of what we are doing as a government. It complements the work we are doing in the other 49 initiatives. However, it is critical to get that infrastructure in place to avoid those disasters he mentioned, and rightfully so.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to this very important motion.

I think the motion has two objectives. First, it will continue to not only raise awareness in the country but also in the House regarding the need to act in a serious manner on the issue of climate change, as there is a need for constantly evolving measures to address this crisis. Second, it is an opportunity for the government to get the support of the other parties in the House for strong action now, and even stronger action in the future, to address climate change.

I am quite proud of our government's bold leadership on the climate file. We have introduced a price on carbon, namely through backstop legislation, and it is the first time a federal government in Canada has introduced a price on carbon. It is for those jurisdictions that have not already developed and implemented mechanisms to make carbon pollution no longer free.

It is important to note that the opposition is building a narrative around the price on pollution and our environmental plan, which involves more than just a price on pollution, as I will talk about in a little while. The opposition is feeding the notion that somehow there is no public support for this kind of measure. However, our policy came out of a platform commitment, and Canadians voted to give our government the mandate to put a price on carbon pollution.

Environmentalists have said to me that it is all fine and good to put a price on carbon pollution but that we need to do more. In fact, we are doing more. We are doing much more than implementing a single policy measure.

That is why I think the motion is important. It provides an opportunity to elaborate further on all the measures our government has implemented since coming to power to address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions.

We have introduced a suite of measures. As a matter of fact, we have become world leaders in the battle against climate change. Canada's foremost resource economist, Mark Jaccard, has said, “Canada is innovating a model of growing interest to policy-makers in developed and developing countries.” He mentioned policies earlier in his article, which I will describe in a moment, and to that end he says, “In just four years, these and other policies have transformed Canada from a global pariah under the Harper government to a model for climate action under [the current Prime Minister's government].”

We are becoming a world leader. Countries are talking about and being influenced by the measures we are implementing.

What are some of the measures we have implemented other than a price on carbon?

We founded the Powering Past Coal Alliance with the U.K. Now it involves a number of countries, all of which are working to eliminate coal production.

We have also introduced regulations against carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. These are meant to eliminate the use of coal power generation in the next few years.

We are currently working on regulations to reduce methane emissions from industries like the oil and gas industry. These regulations will be flexible enough that industries can work within them.

We have also introduced the low-carbon fund, a fund of $2 billion, to invest in innovative approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We will be introducing a clean fuel standard as well. It is essentially a system of tradeable credits that will induce fuel distributors and producers to reduce the carbon intensity of their fuels. It will even go on to incite the adoption of electric vehicles.

There will be benefits under this system to those fleets that adopt electric vehicles. This is another important measure that we have implemented. It goes beyond simply putting a price on carbon. It includes a whole suite of measures. In the latest budget we introduced an incentive for those who purchase zero emission vehicles, including of course different types of hybrids.

Global climate change is having its impact. There is flooding, as we have seen this spring. There is drought. There are forest fires. Meanwhile, the Conservatives twiddle their thumbs. They do not have a plan for addressing global climate change, which has very serious impacts like flooding and drought.

Canadians have a right to be distrustful of the Conservative approach to climate change. The only measure that I can remember the Conservatives implementing in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions was the public transit tax credit. This was the showpiece of the Conservative climate change plan. The interesting thing about the public transit tax credit is that it was billed as a climate change measure, but in fact it was not. It was not a climate change measure and the government knew that, and I will tell the House how the government knew that.

I remember that when we were in government before the Harper government came to power, I thought this idea was a rather interesting one. It had a lot of intuitive appeal. I remember sitting on the environment committee and asking witnesses from Finance Canada why we did not have a public transit tax credit. The representatives said it just does not work, that it does not incite a significant change in commuter behaviour. It does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a significant amount, yet it costs the public purse a lot of money. The cost of reducing one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions through a tax credit like that ends up being about $1,000 per tonne.

Conservative members on the other side of the House are fighting what is essentially a $20 per tonne cost for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, yet they implemented something that cost $1,000 a tonne. It was not as advertised. It was not a climate change measure. It obviously had other objectives.

The interesting thing about the Conservatives' opposition to a price on carbon is that there is an inherent contradiction in their position with the traditional Conservative adherence to the free market. There is a fundamental contradiction that leads to the incoherence of the Conservative Party's approach to climate change.

The price on carbon works through the price system, and that is at the core of the free market system. That price signal will allocate resources towards one area or another, and that is exactly what a price on carbon is meant to do. Canadians need to know that there is a fundamental contradiction in the Conservatives' position. A price on carbon sends a price signal to the market. It changes consumer behaviour.

There was an interesting quote in an article on the weekend by Andrew Coyne, who is no Liberal apologist I might add. He basically said as a result of the price on carbon, “the consumer, through the choices he makes in the marketplace, will be an effective agent, not only of his own interest, but of society's.” This is what happens when there is a price on carbon pollution.

The last point I would like to make is that there must be a bit of division in the Conservative ranks, because we have had a price on carbon in Quebec for many years and I have not heard any Conservative member disagreeing with Quebec government policy on pricing carbon.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member argued in his speech that a commitment to free markets should lead us to support all possible market mechanisms in the form of taxation. Of course, that is not the case. Supporting free markets does not oblige one to support market-based taxation measures. That is so elementary.

The contradiction in the member's remarks that I would like to dwell on for a moment is that he said we cannot have tax incentives like the transit tax credit because they do not work and are too small and marginal, yet on the other hand, he said that imposing a tax that someone further to the left would say is far too little would make all the difference in terms of behaviour.

If the member thinks that a tax will make a difference in behaviour, why does he not think a tax incentive will make a difference? The Conservatives' approach was based on tax incentives, and it worked and emissions went down.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member is actually wrong. The University of Ottawa did a study of the impact of the public transit tax credit and found that the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions was marginal and ended up costing the Canadian taxpayer, which the member purports all the time to be defending, $1,000 per tonne of greenhouse emissions reduced. The current price of carbon is about $20, going up to $50 by 2022. This is, of course, scandalous to the member, yet his government spent $1,000 per tonne to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with an ineffective credit.

This has been borne out by studies especially at the University of Ottawa. A price on carbon does work because the demand curve is downward sloping. This is economics 101. Prices and demand go in opposite directions. The track record in B.C. proves that through a price on carbon we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by quite an amount.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, in Saint-Hyacinthe, young people who are well aware of the climate emergency organized demonstrations. I was with the 150,000 young people who marched in Montreal during the protest. I read the protest signs and talked with them. What these young people were saying is that the government needs to put words into action. They think that a government that believes in the climate emergency would not subsidize the fossil fuel industry or buy a pipeline.

When the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food states in the environment guide she is putting out in her riding that the purchase of a pipeline is unavoidable, does she mean that the government is not capable of standing up to the pressure exerted by oil companies?

Does my colleague not realize that, by taking to the streets in Montreal, these 150,000 young people are saying that the government's words are not consistent with its actions?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, young people are indeed taking charge of their future. They are sending an important message to us as legislators. The message is that we need to take action, and that is what our government has done.

At the beginning of my speech, I read a whole list of measures that our government has taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to take all of those measures into account. However, some of them are quite technical and the media does not talk enough about them.

I think that this motion will draw attention to all the measures that the current government is taking to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is an urgent need for action, and we need to continue to fight against climate change. I am very pleased that young people are getting involved and that they have such a high level of awareness of this problem.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

The motion in front of us today proposes to declare a climate emergency. I agree that there is a climate emergency. Just over two weeks ago, on May 11, something extraordinary happened on the planet that has not happened any time in the last 800,000 years. For the first time ever, the planet's daily baseline of carbon dioxide went over 415 parts per million.

Let us put that into perspective. Humans have been on this planet only for some 315,000 years. For over 99.99% of the last 800,000 years, carbon dioxide concentrations have ranged from a low of 160 parts per million to a high of 300 parts per million. We know that from daily measurements that have been taken from an observatory at the top of a mountain in Hawaii, which is maintained by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of San Diego. We also know that from core ice samples that have been taken two miles deep in both Antarctica and Greenland.

It has just been in that last 0.01% of the last 800,000 years, in other words in the last 60 or 70 years, that C02 concentrations have risen above 300 parts per million. They blew through 400 parts per million in 2013, and just two weeks ago, on May 11, they blew through 415 parts per million.

Clearly, the planet's atmosphere is changing and there is an urgency to address climate change.

However, the motion in front of us today encapsulates what is wrong with the current government and its climate change plans. The government has made grand pronouncements with no action to deliver. It promised to respect parliamentary institutions, yet the PMO shut down two investigations at the ethics and justice committees in the SNC-Lavalin affair. It promised electoral reform, but abandoned that. It promised to lighten the whip and the PMO control over MPs so they could represent their constituents, but it has more control than ever before. It promised to respect the rule of law, but it has failed to do that with the irregular expulsions of the member for Markham—Stouffville and the member for Vancouver Granville. It promised action on climate change.

This motion is an example of a government that is all about these grandiose pronouncements, with little to back it up. According to the government's own data, greenhouse gases are rising in Canada. Yes, members heard that right: GHGs are increasing, not decreasing. The current government has been in power for almost four years. According to the latest national inventory report, submitted last month to the United Nations by the current government, Canada's emissions actually rose in 2017, the most recent year for which data is available, by eight megatonnes to 716 megatonnes.

According to the government's own projections released by Environment Canada last December, a mere five months ago, Canada is not on track to meet its Paris commitment. According to that report of last December, under the government's pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, Canada will fall short of its Paris commitments by some 79 megatonnes.

To be fair, this problem of Canadian governments making promises they do not keep is not restricted to the current government. Jean Chrétien's government agreed to the Kyoto protocol in 1997, and the prime minister of the day himself signed it in December 2002. Despite having almost nine years to enact a plan, when the Conservatives came to power and were appointed in February 2006, little action had been taken. We all know what happened next. The Conservative government blew through its Kyoto protocol commitments and withdrew from the protocol in 2011.

The previous Conservative government committed to the Copenhagen accord, setting a new set of targets, which was a commitment to reduce emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by next year. With less than 12 months to go in this calendar year to 2020, we are going to blow through that commitment.

The current government signed the Paris accord, but in its own data and projections, it is on track to blow through those targets.

What is so astounding about all of this, about what Canadian governments promise and what they deliver, is that never in the history of this country has the PMO had so much control over this legislature and its committees. Despite this control, despite this ability to effectively get its way on legislation, little action has been taken.

What is so egregious about the Liberal government on the file of climate change is that it promised to do things differently. It is no secret that the previous Conservative government viewed climate change as a thorn in its side. It avoided the subject to the greatest extent possible and acted only when it was forced to act. However, the government across the aisle promised to do things differently. It promised action on climate change, but it was all words and little action.

It was not always this way. At one time, Canada's word was its bond. There are Canadian war graves scattered around the world, in little places and in big towns, that are a testament to that. For most of this country's history, when we gave our word, that was our bond. We contributed to the defeat of Fascism in Europe and totalitarianism in the far east. As a result, in the post-war period, Canada was a founding member of most of the post-war structure. We were a founding member of the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and dozens of other organizations. We paid that price in blood, because Canada's word was its bond. There were some 60,000 dead in the First World War, a century ago, and some 40,000 dead in the Second World War, in places like the Netherlands and Hong Kong.

Have we honoured that legacy, where our word is our bond, in recent decades? We made a commitment in 1970 to spend 0.7% of Canada's GDP on foreign aid, on overseas development assistance. We barely meet half of that commitment, and it has been decades in the making. We promised NATO that we would spend 2% of our national economy on military and defence spending, and for decades we have barely met half that commitment. Most of our western European allies and the United States meet or exceed that commitment.

In fact, I remember a speech in this House, in this very Parliament, in 2016, when American President Barack Obama chastised Canada for not meeting its NATO commitment and told this Parliament that we should meet our NATO commitment. Both sides of the aisle erupted in applause, but we are nowhere closer to doing that today than we were when he gave that speech in this House some three years ago.

On climate change, whether it was the Kyoto protocol, the Copenhagen accord or the Paris accord, we have failed to uphold our word. Our word is no longer our bond. We are squandering the inheritance that we as parliamentarians received, built on generations of those Canadians who came before and who, when they spoke, meant that their word was their bond.

According to a recent report by Climate Transparency from last November, Canada is now the highest per capita emitter in the G20. That is right: We emit more per capita than our friends and neighbours south of the border. Canada has only 1.5% of total global emissions, but we are the ninth largest emitter on the planet. If we are not going to do our part, as one of the wealthiest countries in the world, what hope is there for countries 10th through 190th to do their part?

California met its Copenhagen targets four years early, in 2016, despite the fact that its population grew from some 30 million in 1990 to 42 million today, despite the fact that its per capita GDP has skyrocketed in the last 30 years, and despite the fact that it is the world's fifth largest economy.

The motion in front of us today makes a mockery of those who came before; when they gave their word, it was their bond. It belies the inheritance that we received as parliamentarians. The silly motion in front of us today is not a motion that I can support, for all those reasons.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, it is a reasoned speech and one that makes some important points and pushes us to do better. That is exactly the role of the opposition, and I respect it as presented.

However, the challenge we have is that we inherited a government that had literally gone in the wrong direction for 10 years. Its only real claim that greenhouse gas emissions were reduced was because of not just one, but two recessions. The second was as the Conservatives left office. The reality is that the steps taken in this country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are uniformly opposed by Conservatives from coast to coast to coast, particularly in provincial capitals right now. In terms of things like the transit tax, which the other side likes to speak about, it did not make more people take transit; it simply cut the cost for affluent transit users.

In dealing with this issue, we have to do two things: We have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and we have to make it cost-effective. Many of the investments to be made have long-term impacts rather than immediate impacts. The existential wish to suddenly cut greenhouse gas emissions is very difficult to achieve when there is constant pressure on resource extraction, resource development and resource foundation, which generate most of the greenhouse gas.

In terms of practical ideas that the member opposite spoke to, since he now admits that we need to make progress here, what are the things that his party will contribute to lower greenhouse gas emissions, instead of fighting every single attempt to do that from this side of the House?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members again that this is not the time for major speeches. It is questions and comments. Please keep the preamble short enough to allow others to ask questions.

The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative leader has said that he would come forward with a climate change plan in the next several weeks. I look forward to that, as I am sure members opposite will as well.

On the previous government's record, while it failed to meet Kyoto, it is interesting to note that of the nine years that government was in power, three were years when emissions declined in Canada. The point my speech was trying to make was that, whether it is on overseas development assistance commitments, NATO commitments or climate change commitments, successive governments in the House of various political stripes have failed to uphold Canada's word, and we as parliamentarians have to do better.

We have to get away from these silly debates on silly motions in the dying days of a Parliament that do nothing to advance the cause on climate change and so many other issues, and get to work on actually achieving the goals that Canada promised when it put its signature to these documents.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, once again, that I always enjoy debates that turn on the Liberals and the Conservatives talking about who has the worst record on a very important crisis that is before us, like climate change.

I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills, but what I do not find is any mention of what the Conservatives would actually do about climate change. We can fault the Liberal motion for having nothing of substance in it, but I have not seen any substance from the Conservative side, either. I am going to join in the debate in that same spirit, saying that both are equally absent when it comes to the real measures we need to fight climate change.