Debates of May 27th, 2019

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the question is that I do not know what measures we are going to propose. That is a tightly guarded secret from the Conservative leader, and he will be making an announcement in due course, in several short weeks, about what the Conservative plan is on the environment and climate change.

More broadly speaking, it behooves all of us in the House to focus on the substance at hand, which is the fact that Canada is one of the highest per capita emitters in the world, higher than the Americans. We emit more GHGs per capita than do people living in President Trump's America.

We have failed to uphold the Kyoto protocol commitments and the Copenhagen accord commitments, and we are going to blow through the Paris accord commitments. That is the fact of the matter. Until we face the facts, we will never devise the solutions necessary to uphold the word and the signature that Canada put to these international documents.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have a chance to speak to today's emergency motion and the amendments to the motion put forward by my hon. colleague, the member for Abbotsford.

As indicated in the Paris Agreement, the issue of climate change will take a joint global effort to reduce emissions going forward. The whole world needs to be involved.

I strongly feel that most Canadians understand this and are willing to do their part to reduce emissions where they can. In fact, this past weekend, I had the opportunity to visit some friends at a campsite. A number of the young children there were talking about the issue of climate change and the issue of the carbon tax. Their point was that this carbon tax is being put on them to reduce emissions, but every one of them said that it is not going to do it and that it is not going forward. Canadians understand that. At the same time, we recognize that Canada is responsible, and these young people understood that. However, it has just 1.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions, which is minuscule compared to other countries. There truly needs to be an international, co-operative effort to address climate change.

The Liberal motion we are debating today will, unfortunately, do nothing to address climate change. There are no concrete actionable items in the motion. It asks that we in the House recognize that climate change is a real and urgent crisis. Yet it is only now, three and a half years into the Liberals' mandate, just before an election, that this issue has suddenly become urgent. We have known about climate change for decades. It is not a new concept. Why, days before the House rises for the summer, have the Liberals decided that it is urgent now?

Furthermore, the motion fails to acknowledge the fact that Canada continues to fall short of its emission reduction targets. Just weeks ago, the Minister of Environment appeared at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and was asked point blank whether Canada could meet its targets as set out in the Paris Agreement. She answered that yes, we are “on track”. However, we know that she was not telling the truth, as figures show that Canada fell 44 megatonnes short of its target in 2016, 65 megatonnes short in 2017, and 79 megatonnes short in 2018.

I cannot understand why the minister would mislead and provide misinformation to Canadians in this way. Perhaps it is embarrassing, given that the government painted itself as a champion of the environment. It seems that the Liberals are trying to save face with the motion we are debating today, yet anyone can see that this motion will have zero impact on reducing emissions and will not get Canada any closer to meeting the targets we agreed to under the Paris Agreement.

We know that there are many great innovative ideas being developed every day in our great country. People all over Canada are coming up with innovative and knowledgeable ideas that utilize the natural resources we are blessed to have here. I would like to speak about some of the efforts that are ongoing that are actually having a measurable impact on emissions reductions and climate change in Canada.

A recent report conducted by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change outlined how crucial the removal of CO₂ from the atmosphere is in reducing emissions, and one of the ways that this is done is through carbon capture and storage. Many of my colleagues have heard me speak about this incredible technology in the past.

Carbon capture and storage, CCS, is an innovative green technology that allows the capture of waste CO₂ emissions produced by industrial large emitters, including coal-fired power plants. The technology allows for underground storage of the waste CO₂, which can then be utilized for things such as enhanced oil recovery. This means that the CO₂ produced by a generator that has been fitted with CCS will not enter the atmosphere and will be reused in other industries or absorbed three kilometres below the ground. Furthermore, the waste product generated as a result, fly ash, is also used by other industries and can be sold for cement production. In fact, the City of Vancouver is currently using this very fly ash in the construction of its sidewalks. The use of fly ash in cement further reduces emissions, this time for the cement company that utilizes it, for which CCS does not get credit.

Also worth noting is that the flue gas from coal-fired power plants is almost the exact same flume gas that comes out of cement and steel plants, among others. CCS can take that gas and remove the particles from it. This means that this great technology could be moved into all these other areas and do the same thing. By utilizing this knowledge, CCS has a wide range of applications that will only benefit the environment.

In my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain, there are three power plants: the Boundary Dam Power Station, the Shand Power Station and the Poplar River Power Station. CCS is installed on unit 3, or BD3, at the Boundary Dam Power Station. Boundary Dam was the first power station in the world to successfully utilize this technology. BD3 went online in October 2014, becoming the world's first utility-scale, fully integrated post-combustion carbon capture facility. With CCS, BD3 now produces 115 megawatts of power, enough to power over 100,000 homes in Saskatchewan annually. It is capable of reducing SO₂ emissions from the coal process by up to 100% and of reducing CO₂ emissions by up to 92%. So far, the use of CCS technology on BD3 has resulted in the capture of over 2.5 million tonnes of CO₂ since its operational start-up. Let us not forget nitrous oxide and particulate matter, at 99.95%, or the fact that sulphur dioxide is sold to chemical companies and that CO₂ is sold to oil companies.

This is innovation. This is exactly what the minister and Prime Minister should be championing when it comes to emissions reductions in Canada. CCS is the technology that will allow power plants in Saskatchewan to continue operating for their functional lifespans, rather than shutting down in 2030 with no solid alternative available for the production of electricity. This is something the Liberals should be promoting, yet the minister has barely made mention of this world-first technology, despite the fact that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that CCS is considered essential in three of four pathways to keeping global warming within 1.5° C. The government should be shouting this from the rooftops, but unfortunately, the silence with respect to CCS has been deafening. Not only is this technology appropriate, it continues to allow for the employment of over 400 middle-class workers at the power plant and 365 at the Westmoreland Coal Company. These are skilled, trained, knowledgeable, hard-working Canadians who simply want to continue to work.

In the past, one of the issues governments worldwide have had with CCS is the cost. It is not cheap to retrofit a power plant, but I have some good news on that front. A report released by the International CCS Knowledge Centre, “The Shand CCS Feasibility Study”, addresses this concern. It states that retrofitting Shand with CCS would be 67% cheaper per megawatt hour compared to Boundary Dam. Again, that is a 67% reduction in cost. That is huge. With economies of scale, we should continue to see even further cost reductions.

With the full-scale CCS facility at Shand, roughly two million megatonnes of CO₂ could be captured every year, which is twice the capacity of Boundary Dam. Clearly, CCS technology is getting better and better as it is refined and optimized over time, and that is something the Canadian government should be supporting wholeheartedly.

Furthermore, up to 140,000 tonnes of fly ash could be resold in the concrete market, which could offset emissions in concrete production. This equates to a potential net reduction of 125,000 tonnes of CO₂ each year, resulting in a facility with net negative CO₂ emissions. This means that the facility could be considered carbon neutral. Is this not exactly what the minister wants? Shand would be a power plant that was actually carbon neutral. It would drastically lower emissions while allowing hundreds of hard-working Canadians to keep their jobs.

Today's motion, which again is being classified by the Liberals as urgent and an emergency, is simply ineffective. The amendments put forward by my colleague from Abbotsford have substance and call on the government to produce a real climate change plan that will enable Canada to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions according to the targets in the Paris Agreement. That is real, measurable action, and by working with our international counterparts and ensuring that we are all doing our part, we will make a difference toward emissions reductions worldwide.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that was accomplished in Ontario was the elimination of coal and using coal to generate power for electricity. That effectively was how the Harper government claimed it reduced its greenhouse gas emissions in the last decade.

Does the member opposite now support what the Province of Ontario did by eliminating coal? Does the member opposite now recognize that providing tax cuts for upper middle-class transit riders instead of providing transit is the wrong way to get people to use transit? It does not matter how many tax credits we give people, because if there is no bus, they are not going to use transit. They are going to drive. Would the member opposite agree that providing transit is an incentive to use it and therefore not drive?

Would the member opposite also agree that when premier Wynne eliminated coal power as a source of energy, and when Dalton McGuinty did the same, that was the actual accomplishment the Conservatives like to hang their hat on?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan, for the longest time, has generated 50% of its electricity from coal, and it has reduced that with the increases it has done. That said, we are seeing things such as carbon capture being put on Boundary Dam 3, which is providing tremendous effects and benefits with respect to cleaning the air and the environment.

The member talked about transit. I have been to his riding. I lived in that area when I was much younger. It is great to have buses all over the place, but having a green bus to take someone from Maryfield, Saskatchewan, to see a doctor in Regina, which is two hours away, is not going to happen. It is not going to happen no matter how many buses the government promises to put forward.

The plans that are put forward are plans for urban Canada. The government does not recognize rural Canada in any of its efforts, and rural Canadians are suffering as a result. The carbon tax the Liberals are putting forward is going to hurt them even more.

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

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, the Conservative government gutted environmental protections for thousands of lakes and rivers by amending the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Now, the Conservatives are telling us that they are going to propose an environmental protection policy.

How can Canadians and the members of this House take them seriously when, in the past, they showed us they were doing just the opposite?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as we progress and move forward in the next three weeks, we should be able to be open to everyone in Canada about what our plan will be. I look forward to doing that. Everyone will hear about our plan at the same time. I appreciate the steps we look forward to. We have technologies and things we have talked about.

My hometown in Saskatchewan is called the sunshine capital of Canada. SaskPower, which is our power agency in Saskatchewan, is looking forward to producing more solar power units around the province, but those units are not being built in Saskatchewan. They are being built elsewhere. When they come in, they are put up, and one person mans them. It is the same for the windmills. When the windmills are put up, we do not see any vehicles or people working there unless the windmill is broken.

That is the biggest thing that is going to happen with this carbon tax and the plans that are being put forward. People are going to lose their jobs, and there are going to be more people unemployed.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

It is an honour to stand in the House today on behalf of the people of Burnaby and North Vancouver to speak in the strongest possible terms in favour of this motion. Canada and the world are in a very real and urgent climate crisis. If we are to ensure a better future for our kids, our grandkids and their grandkids after that, we can no longer take our environment for granted.

Since being elected in 2015, our government has been firmly committed to climate action. The pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change is a comprehensive framework that will ensure we meet our Paris targets and go beyond them. I encourage everyone in this House to read my 10-page report on the topic, entitled “Our Government's Work on Climate Change and the Environment”. It is available on my website at terrybeechmp.ca/policy.

I have a special guest with me today, my daughter Nova, who is now five and a half months old. This is her first trip to Ottawa. I thought there would be no better opportunity for her to visit this House than during a debate on the defining issue of our generation.

The IPCC has made our collective impact on the world very clear. Already, the human race has warmed the planet a full degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels. If we do nothing, this will increase to 1.5° C between Nova's 12th and 34th birthdays. We are running out of time.

Climate change should not and cannot be a partisan issue. It needs to be an issue that brings us together so that we collectively bring all of our tools to the fight. I come to this House every day hoping to be inspired, not just by my own party but by all of the amazing and talented people Canadians have sent to this place to fight on behalf of our collective futures. Working together and alongside our colleagues in the world, I know we can solve this.

There have been people who refer to different versions of the green new deal as a potential path forward. The version I am most familiar with is House Resolution No. 109, brought forward by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez in the United States. After reading this resolution, it is quite inspiring to see how much contemporary Canadian policy has already made its way into the proposed green new deal.

Here are 10 quick examples:

Number one, the green new deal calls for a reduction in emissions, with a goal of reaching net zero. In Canada, we have a national price on pollution as part of a 50-point plan to lower emissions.

Number two is the creation of good, high-paying jobs, especially in the energy sector. In Canada, we have created more than a million jobs in the last three and a half years, many of which are in the clean energy sector.

Number three is major investments in infrastructure. Our historic $180-billion infrastructure plan is shortening commutes, protecting our environment and making life more affordable.

Number four is to secure clean water, air and soil. We have restored and modernized environmental protection legislation, invested billions in protecting and restoring habitat and phased out the use of coal, just to name a few.

Number five is to empower indigenous people to thrive. No relationship is more important to our government, which is why we are taking unprecedented action to ensure indigenous Canadians have a more prosperous future.

Number six is having 100% clean power. We are on track to have 90% of our power coming from non-emitting sources before 2030.

Number seven is to upgrade buildings to be more energy efficient. In budget 2019, we dedicated more than $1 billion to doing just that.

Number eight is investing in transportation infrastructure and electric vehicles. This week, we announced a further $1.4 billion investment in SkyTrain capacity, not to mention the $300 million in electric vehicle incentives and a quarter of a billion dollars in charging infrastructure that has already been announced. Canadians have told us that they want to drive their electric vehicles from Vancouver Island to Prince Edward Island, and we are making that a reality.

Number nine is to increase forestation. Canada has long been a leader in sustainable forest management, another environmental issue that B.C. has shown leadership on.

Number ten is investing in research and development. Our government has recommitted Canada to being a leader in research, science and development. In budget 2018, we made the largest investment in science and university research in Canadian history.

Obviously, these measures do not get us the whole way that we need to go, but they do represent a significant down payment that is putting Canada on the right track. This month, Clean Energy Canada, a think tank at Simon Fraser University, released a new report entitled “Missing the Bigger Picture”. In this report, it detailed the extraordinary growth of the Canadian clean energy sector. Canada's clean energy sector grew at an annual rate of 4.8% over a period of seven years. In 2017, this sector accounted for 298,000 jobs spread across every province.

In 2017 alone, there was $35.3 billion invested in this space: $5.3 billion was invested in British Columbia, and accounted for 32,000 British Columbia jobs. British Columbia's leadership, as the first province to set a price on pollution, has given it a noticeable strategic advantage. In fact, if we look at the Global Cleantech 100 list, out of the 12 Canadian companies that made the list, half of them are located in British Columbia.

Let us talk about carbon pricing. In B.C., where this was first implemented in 2008, we witnessed a 16% reduction in per capita fossil fuel use, while per capita use increased by 3% in the rest of Canada. During this time, B.C. also enjoyed the best economic growth in the country.

To be clear, a market-based economic incentive has to be a part of the solution if we are going to reverse the trajectory of climate change. Carbon pricing is effective for four primary reasons. First, it gives every person and business an economic incentive to make better environmental choices. Second, it speeds up the tipping point at which renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. Third, it gives Canadians an advantage in building innovative clean energy companies and technologies. Fourth, and most importantly, it helps to save the planet and it is the right thing to do for future generations.

Done correctly, our policies will work to protect the environment and grow the economy at the same time. I would recommend that individuals in this House read my other report, entitled “Our Government's Work to Strengthen The Economy”. This 12-page document is also available on my website at terrybeechmp.ca/policy.

There are two primary arguments against putting a price on pollution. The first is that Canada makes up less than 2% of global emissions. While this is true, Canada is also the ninth-nighest emitter in the world. In fact, if we take the top 10 countries, China, America, India, Russia, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Iran, Canada and Saudi Arabia, we collectively account for 64% of emissions. This also means that countries that contribute less than 2% of emissions individually, collectively account for 46% of emissions.

This gives Canada a very special opportunity to be a leader in the world. We are big enough to be a part of the top 10 and make a real difference on 64% of the problem, but we are also small enough to demonstrate to the world what a country that makes up less than 2% of the world's emissions can do to help save the planet.

We know that the best catalyst for good policy is precedent, so let us work together to make Canada a positive example for the world.

The second argument is that putting a price on pollution is simply unaffordable for the average Canadian. This argument is a bit disingenuous given that our price on pollution is revenue neutral. If affordability is truly a cause that members in this House want to show leadership on, then I question why so many have not supported our policies to make life more affordable for Canadians.

We have made historic investments of more than $55 billion to improve housing affordability, invested $7.5 billion in child care and lowered taxes for the middle class. We have lowered taxes for small business, reduced credit card service charges and made massive investments in public transit. We have improved the working tax benefit and moved forward on a national poverty strategy that has seen 825,000 Canadians lifted out of poverty.

Canada now enjoys the lowest rate of poverty in the history of our country. The Canada child benefit on its own lifted 300,000 children out of poverty. This means that our children are not only going to be better off today but 25 years from now, when they become the next generation of doctors, engineers and entrepreneurs, Canada itself will be better off as well.

In summary, we are in a climate emergency, and we need to continue to move forward in a way that protects the environment, grows the economy, and makes life more affordable so that the average Canadian can get ahead. It will not be easy, but Canadians are counting on all of us to work together to make sure we get this right.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we go to questions and comments, I want to remind hon. members that stating their name as part of a website falls under the rule that they cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly. I want to remind everyone that using props or referring to props is not allowed either.

Questions and comments.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech. As part of the environmental plan and the general attitude of the government on fossil fuels, I have a very important question for the member.

I understand that the member campaigned explicitly against the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion during the 2015 election. Given that his government has bought this pipeline, I would like the member to confirm right now whether he supports the construction of this project, as his government says it does, and if so, on what date will construction commence, given that the Minister of Finance said it would begin last summer?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my record on this project has been very clear, not only in my voting record in the House but because I have published more documents on this project than any other member in the House. In fact, when the original panel was doing its ministerial review and it went up and down the pipeline, I attended six of those hearings. I attended all three full days in Burnaby. I was the only member of Parliament to attend those hearings. No one from the Conservatives or the NDP even decided to show up.

It has always been my priority to represent my constituency's concerns first. I will go door to door coming into this next election to share with every person how our plan for Canada is going to improve lives, not only for Nova but for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about promises, I would like to read a paragraph from the Liberal election platform:

We will fulfill our G20 commitment and phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the medium-term.

Yet, Canada is still the largest provider of subsidies to the oil and gas industry per unit of GDP in the G7.

Why did they not keep this promise?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to subsidies for fossil fuels, we are keeping that promise. Eight out of nine tax subsidies have been removed. We have a plan to get us there before 2025. Of course, there are some complications. For example, some indigenous communities rely on subsidies to ensure they can continue to power their communities.

We have a plan. It is not happening overnight, but we are going to get there and we are going to keep that promise.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, one of his colleagues mentioned the various disasters related to the climate emergency, particularly forest fires. I would like to remind him that the most devastating forest fire in Canada occurred in Miramichi, New Brunswick, in 1825.

How could the carbon tax have prevented that fire in 1825?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, putting a price on pollution and on carbon is one of 50 measures we are putting in place to ensure we hit our climate targets to literally save this planet. What would we do to prevent forest fires? In British Columbia, every summer we dread the smoke that engulfs the Lower Mainland. It was not something I ever had to deal with growing up, but it is something we have had three of the last four summers and that is happening entirely from climate change.

Instead of denying the problem, instead of looking for ways to obfuscate and do nothing, telling people the Conservatives are going to have some miracle plan that never seems to emerge, I would suggest we all get together and figure out a real solution, and carbon pricing should be one of those solutions because it works really well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the government is not doubling the targets for 2030. We are still dealing with the targets that were set by the Harper government, which is a 30% reduction over 2005 levels. We should be looking at 50% to 60% reductions over 2005 levels so we can deal with this climate emergency properly.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the member to the House. He represents a riding I used to represent as a municipal city councillor almost 20 years ago.

I have to be short, but basically, the Liberal Party of Canada has a plan that will not only ensure we tackle climate change, but it will ensure we grow the economy at the same time so Canadians, our children and grandchildren can have a better future and more opportunities than we had when we were growing up.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak on important issues, and this important environmental issue is one that the Government of Canada brought to the fore last week to get some feedback on from members on all sides of the House.

Environmental issues have been there virtually since day one of our government. Many proactive measures have been taken by the government, both in legislative and budgetary measures, to ensure that we are responding to what we believe is an emergency situation for climate not only here in Canada but around the world.

In fact, as one of our first initiatives, we had the Prime Minister, ministers and premiers attend the Paris summit back in 2015, which was kind of a starting point for the Government of Canada to show that we wanted to demonstrate strong leadership on the environmental file. Therefore, I think it somewhat appropriate that three and a half years later we are now having this debate. Members can reflect on what has actually taken place over the last three and a half years. We have a government that has in fact given this issue a great deal more attention than Stephen Harper did in the previous 10 years.

In Paris, we had political regimes of all different types convene. They talked about ways we can reduce emissions, among many other things. One of the things that ultimately came out of that conference was the need for governments to come up with initiatives that would have a positive impact in reducing emissions. This is where we, as a national government, put together a good, solid group of individuals. That led ultimately, from what I recall, to a conference in British Columbia. Through that, we achieved, I would argue, somewhat of a historic agreement. We had provinces from all regions of our country and the federal government saying that a price on pollution was one of the ways we can have a profoundly positive impact on our environment going forward.

At the end of the day, it received fairly widespread support. Inside the House we had the Green Party, the New Democrats and, obviously, the governing Liberals very supportive of that particular policy initiative. The Conservative Party, at the time, right from the word go, opposed the concept of a price on pollution, which we found somewhat disappointing, but not necessarily surprising given their previous 10 years in government. I would like to think that the official opposition would recognize ideas that are in fact of benefit, and I would suggest that this is one of those ideas that could really make a difference. Generally speaking, I believe it has been well received in all regions of our country.

The idea of a price on pollution is not new. Many provinces have had it for a number of years. My colleague who spoke previously is from British Columbia, and British Columbia has had it for over 10 years. For those who are following what is taking place in the province of British Columbia, relatively speaking, its economy has been doing quite well over the last decade since it implemented a price on pollution. We can look at Quebec, which has also had a price on pollution for a number of years, yet we do not necessarily hear from Quebec politicians that it is a bad thing.

I believe that even the people of Quebec, including members of Parliament on the Conservative side who are from Quebec, have not been critical of the Province of Quebec for having a price on pollution. If I am wrong, I challenge Conservative members from the province of Quebec to tell the people of Quebec that the province needs to get rid of the price on pollution.

Different regions and different political parties have, in fact, been supportive of this idea because it is the right way to move forward. A vast majority of the constituents I represent in Winnipeg North will benefit financially from the implementation of a price on pollution. They are receiving that through the tax rebate, the tax incentive. At the end of the day, a vast majority of the constituents I represent, I believe somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80% to 85%, will be better off financially. Only a much smaller percentage of people, those who consume much more, will end up paying more.

I believe that Canadians as a whole understand and appreciate what is behind a price on pollution and are therefore supportive of it. It is a major initiative.

Another thing I want to reference is the low-carbon economy challenge fund. It has been criticized by the Conservatives and, to a certain degree, by my New Democrat friends, which somewhat surprises me. What I like about this particular fund created by the government is that it provides a financial incentive for non-profit groups, governments of different levels and the private sector to participate in coming up with ideas that will make a difference in reducing emissions. I believe some 54 projects were approved, which has ultimately led to a commitment of well over $400 million.

Some may wonder why I would bring up the issue related to Loblaws. When I look at the Loblaws contract, I find it to be very compelling, as it was a good agreement. It was one of 50-plus that were fairly effective. We are contributing 25% of a $40-million-plus project that is going to change refrigeration in a number of stores in all regions of our country. The technology being used for that is coming from the province of Ontario, Mississauga, I believe. At the end of the day, I believe we will have a much healthier industry, an industry led by a Canadian company that is providing good middle-class jobs.

At the same time, that one project's effect will be equivalent to taking 50,000 vehicles off the roads on an annual basis. That is about the size of Brandon, Manitoba, the second-largest city in the province I represent. To me, that will have a real, significant impact.

It appears that, as a government, we are the only party recognizing that when we make agreements and try to further reduce emissions, we are prepared to work with the private sector and different levels of government, which that $450-million fund demonstrates. This government is committed to working with different stakeholders to look at ways to reduce emissions.

What it all boils down, whether in regard to the price on pollution or the particular fund I referred to, is that for the first time in more than 10 years, Canada has a government committed to demonstrating strong national leadership and is prepared to work with different stakeholders, both private and public, to be sensitive to what Canadians are telling us, namely, that our environment is important and that there is a sense of emergency to the matter.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the motion on the climate emergency was moved back due to other government business. This is an emergency, and neither the NDP motion nor the Liberal motion before the House speaks to the detailed response necessary—in other words, to holding to 1.5°C. This is not a political goal but a scientific reality that if we do not hit, we could actually lose human civilization, or worse. It will require at least 45% reductions below 2010 levels by 2030. That is what the IPCC said. Our view, as Greens, is that the IPCC has been over-optimistic about how much time we have. As well, Canada has of course a larger burden of reduction because we are so far behind many other countries.

The Greens are calling for 60% reductions against 2005 levels by 2030. What would be the Liberal target? Right now, the government has held on to the Conservative target under Stephen Harper, which is a path to extinction.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, who has done so much background work and can provide all sorts of science related to the issue, I will not try to bluff my way through it, as if I know the numbers as well as the leader of the Green Party does.

What I do know is that the government has taken a number of initiatives that I believe will demonstrate ultimately that we understand the importance of sustainable development. This means that we are looking at the economy and the environment, as well as working with the different stakeholders and recognizing that we can in fact advance the economy and protect our environment for future generations. We have demonstrated that very clearly. For example, by working with Canadians, we have generated one million plus jobs in three and a half years. We have seen that happen by having many different organizations and stakeholders participating jointly with the Government of Canada in ensuring that there are protections, whether with legislation protecting our oceans and marine space or looking at ways in which we are reducing emissions in a very real and tangible way.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the discussions and speeches since the early afternoon. The Liberals do not seem to realize that what they are trying to do with one hand, they are destroying with the other.

For example, they are putting a price on carbon. They decided to do what every scientist—not just environmentalists—is saying needs to be done, namely putting a price on carbon. However, they also need to stop giving subsidies to the oil and gas industries, the fossil fuel industries. The Liberals continue to give the fossil fuel industries around $2 billion a year. They also bought the Trans Mountain pipeline to the tune of $4.3 billion. The Liberals are putting a price on carbon, but they are exempting the biggest polluters.

Why are you trying to make a bit of progress on the one hand and then turning around and completely destroying everything you are trying to do? Your plan is not working.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before I recognize the parliamentary secretary, I want to remind members that questions must be put through the Chair. I assure the member that I have no agenda. I serve at the pleasure of the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has clearly indicated that it is committed to reducing the subsidization of fossil fuel. The NDP approach is that it would end today. That is unfortunate in the sense that we have to consider many situations, and I will give a specific example.

Many communities in northern Manitoba need that energy source. We just need to look at the cost of a litre of milk, for example. It will be more of a challenge to get rid of these types of subsidies because we have to work with communities and different stakeholders.

The end goal is to be lauded and we want to achieve that. We will work toward it, but we have to ensure we do it in a responsible fashion. Through its budgetary motions, this government has demonstrated that we are prepared to do this.

Notice of Closure Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 30, I wish to give notice that at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate not be further adjourned.

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

The Environment

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be speaking to the motion today on behalf of the residents of Davenport.

Climate change, transitioning into a low-carbon economy and finding ways to live sustainably are key issues for my riding.

Before I go any further, I am very pleased to be sharing my time with the member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

Here is why I am particularly excited about the motion coming before the House and having an opportunity to speak before the members.

Within my riding, I have a large group of environmentalists. Most people care about climate change and what is happening. They have said that there is a sense of urgency around climate change. The fact that we have a government motion on climate emergency is very fitting and exactly articulates the feeling within Davenport today.

I also like the motion because it indicates that we have to do more, beyond everything we have done. We open a door to say that we have more to do moving forward. I wanted to mention those two points as I begin my remarks today.

I love hosting sessions within the community because I like hearing directly from Davenport residents. The first climate action town hall I held was on March 27. It was an informative session. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has been going across the country and I have been sharing her presentation with the residents of Davenport, giving them a sense of all the actions we are taking to combat climate change. I have had a very lively exchange with them. Here are some of the points and questions they have raised.

Some of them said that we had a good plan, that we had good policy and that we needed to implement all of it. Some of them said that we needed to do more more and go faster.

Many people felt that we needed to be more urgent in our communications, to make people feel that we were acting urgently and we understood that this was a top-of-mind issue for many Canadians.

Many of them asked for more action on plastic pollution, particularly the youth. I have been to many classrooms within my riding and for many students, this is a top-of-mind issue.

Just as an aside, I have a lot of members of the community saying that they do not want us to use coffee cups from any type of local supplier if it is not 100% recyclable. I love that there is that level of interest within the community and that level of awareness for us to be conscious about what we are buying and using.

Many knew we were trying to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, but they were looking for us to go faster.

Some in my community were okay with our buying a pipeline, but some said that it felt counter-intuitive to our objectives in moving to a low-carbon economy.

The main point they made was that they wanted us to not wait for a perfect plan, but to move forward on a really good plan. That is exactly what I feel we have and I am proud of all the actions our federal government has taken.

I decided to invite a panel of experts to do a second session to answer many of the questions that came up during my climate action town hall at the end of March. I invited a wonderful, well-known lawyer. I invited an academic. I invited an expert in the insurance industry because I wanted to have a clear sense of the costs of climate change.

Before I go into some of the insights they provided, one of the key points is that our conversation on climate change has changed substantially over the last three and a half years. I remember going to doors trying to convince people that we needed a plan to combat climate change. Now I feel like the conversation has shifted. It is not whether we should be combatting climate change; it is what steps we should take, how fast we should go and what should we do. It is an important distinction to make. Finally everybody is on side, that we have to take immediate and urgent steps on climate change. Now we just have to figure out how much more is that moving forward.

Getting back to part two of my climate action discussion in Davenport, one of the first questions I asked the panellists was whether the the federal government has the right plan in place to fight climate change. The members of the panel had a lot of wonderful things to say. They said it was a good plan, that the current government has done more to reduce GHG emissions than all of the previous governments had done in 30 years and that we have been fighting for action to happen. They mentioned that we are further ahead than we ever have been. They also mentioned the key areas that we are a leader in, such as carbon storage. We are also one of the top countries in the world as a leader in clean energy.

There was also a lot of lobbying of our Minister of Public Safety and his initiatives with respect to a national flood strategy, including assembling a round table on flooding, as well as initiating and putting resources into the mapping of flood plains across Canada. I think a lot of people felt this was going to be a game changer and much needed information as Canadians learn to adapt and mitigate the effects of climate change moving forward.

We also had quite a conversation about the price on pollution. One of the key comments in that regard was that a price on pollution is absolutely needed because companies need incentives to innovate. Businesses also need certainty on the price on pollution or carbon pricing. They also mentioned that it is very good to have this price on pollution because they know that they have to be competitive not only across Canada but also around the world.

Furthermore, they indicated that there were some challenges they felt they wanted us, as a federal government, to be looking at. Some of the key areas where we really need to make progress include buildings and transit. They indicated that it is hard for the federal government to show results without support and action at the provincial level. I know that while we had all the provinces and territories sign onto a pan-Canadian framework, unfortunately over the last year there have been changes in government and I think we have had a lot more challenges trying to bring on side a number of the provinces that previously were on side with our pan-Canadian framework.

There was also some additional conversation in Davenport on the need for additional dollars for a disaster mitigation fund in places like Toronto. Davenport, for those who do not know, is in downtown west Toronto. Our sewage and wastewater system was built for flooding that might occur once every hundred years, not once a year or every two years. Therefore, everybody is looking at how we can adapt, mitigate, reinforce, and put additional resources into place and rethink the infrastructure we currently have in place.

Sometimes there are conversations that come up and we wonder where they will go. One of the key things that came out of the discussions was that some members of the committee said that they sometimes feel a little scared with all of this climate action and wonder what they can do. We had wonderful conversations about what we can do individually in our respective ridings and lives to make a change and have an impact on fighting climate change. I know I have a minute left, so I will list these. I think we can look at our transportation choices, whether we take more public transit or ride a bike versus being in a car. If we need a car, we should look at whether or not we should buy a zero-emissions vehicle. We can also be making choices around food and what we buy, whether it is local food or what kind of food we buy. Our energy sources can also be a way that we can have an impact. Our waste footprint is another way we can look at having an individual impact.

As members can tell, the conversation in Davenport is strong and robust. I am very proud of the actions we have taken at the national level on climate change. They are urgent. It is important. Moving forward, I know we are going to do more.

On behalf of the residents of Davenport, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today.