Debates of May 29th, 2019

Carbon Pricing

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a right to know exactly what the new Liberal carbon tax is going to cost them. In refusing to release Finance Department studies, paid by taxpayers, the Liberals Party is telling Canadians that carbon taxes will continue to increase.

Here are the facts.

At the rate the Liberal carbon tax kicked in at on April 1 of this year, the $20 a tonne carbon tax now being collected will not come anywhere near the Paris accord targets. To meet the Paris goals, the Liberal carbon tax will rise to $200 a tonne. The carbon tax is a consumption tax, just like the HST. If blended with the HST, it would have to rise another 6% to comply with the Paris accord. That means residents in Ontario will be paying a rate of 19%, which is a rate of 19% on every purchase. With the bulk of the taxes paid by the middle class, it will be average Canadians who suffer the most from the Liberal carbon tax.

The member for Ottawa Centre uses climate change as an excuse for every bad policy her government forces on Canadians. The carbon tax is the best example. The same minister, after invoking climate hysteria, claims the rebate bribe on this year's tax return will compensate for the Liberal climate change carbon tax grab.

Where is the compensation for the property owners along the Ottawa River who have lost their homes as a result of bad climate policy made by the Liberal government? The minister makes the comment, “We are all in this together.” Yes we are.

Therefore, let us talk about what is happening in the Minister of Environment's own backyard.

New rules are coming that will make flooding on the Ottawa River a regular occurrence. Bill C-68, which is now before the Senate, will render dam operators on the Ottawa River powerless to protect property owners from flooding.

Ontario Power Generation, OPG, looked at its generation portfolio in hydro power and determined that it “would take 80 per cent instantaneous passage of flow as a principle for meeting the objectives of the new definition of “fish habitat””. OPG modelled one of the outcomes of the legislative changes contained in Bill C-68.

OPG testified before Parliament that had the new rules been in place during this year's flooding “One of the outcomes was that the city of Montreal would have been under a metre more of water if we had not had the ability to store water on the watershed because of flooding in the Great Lakes.” What little authorities can do to control the Ottawa River levels will be removed by Bill C-68.

Anne-Raphaëlle Audouin, president of WaterPower Canada, and the Canadian Electricity Association add “If Bill C-68 is passed in its current form, its impact on our industry’s ability to operate its current stations and build new ones will be catastrophic.”

While the Ottawa River flooding issue is a shared issue for Ontario and Quebec as well as the federal government, Ottawa has legislative authority over “all works connected with the same, or in or on the waters of the River.” That definition is written into legislation that gives responsibility for the Ottawa River to the federal government. I am referring to an act respecting certain works on the Ottawa River, legislation, I might add, that has been on the books since 1870.

It is a given, and everyone knows the historic flood of 2019 has resulted in unprecedented financial losses and expense. Flooding victims have suffered much hardship and are angry and frustrated. Flooding victims are grateful for the help being provided by emergency response teams at all levels of government, including volunteers and soldiers from Garrison Petawawa. However, now is the time to start talking solutions or 2020 will be worse than the flood of 2019.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it astounding to sit here at this hour of the evening and listen to so many falsehoods peddled by the hon. member. I will give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she believes them to be true. However, I would like to correct the record.

Before I get into the specifics of her remarks, I would like to just state, and it is shameful that I even have to start here, that climate change is real, that it is caused primarily by human activities, and that we have an obligation and an opportunity to do something about it. We know, based on the advice of world-leading experts in climate science and climate policy, that the most effective thing we can do to transition to a low-carbon economy is to put a price on pollution.

However, we also know that affordability for families in Canada is paramount. That is why we are returning the revenues to families directly, and eight out of 10 families in the hon. member's province are going to have more money at the end of the year. She does not have to take my word for it. I would invite her to read the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. If she cannot find a copy, I will provide one to her, gladly.

It confirms not only what we have been saying, that eight out of 10 families will be left better off at the end of the year, but that the only families that will be out of pocket will be the wealthiest 20% of families in any province where the federal backstop applies.

This is important. We have made great efforts to ensure that affordability remains paramount. This is a theme of our government, with the Canada child benefit putting more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families, with the middle-class tax cut that raised taxes on the wealthiest 1%, with the guaranteed income supplement that helps the lowest-income single seniors make life more affordable. I note in particular that the Conservative caucus voted against each of these measures.

However, when we are dealing with the economic impact of our plan to put a price on pollution, it is important that we examine the results other jurisdictions have experienced. Long story short, it does not have a drag effect on the economy. If anything, it creates opportunities in the green economy.

The Province of Saskatchewan has actually been found to be burying a report that confirms that the economic impact would be minimal, if it could be discerned at all.

Our plan to put a price on pollution is based on the advice of folks like Prof. William Nordhaus, who actually won the Nobel Prize last year for developing the kind of approach we are now implementing. Conservatives such as Preston Manning support our approach. Mark Cameron, Stephen Harper's former director of policy, supports this approach. Even Doug Ford's chief budget adviser has testified before the Senate in this Parliament saying that the single most effective thing we could do to transition to a low-carbon economy is to put a price on pollution.

The hon. member said that the cost would have to rise to $200 a tonne. This figure is seemingly made up; it is false. We have been clear and transparent with our plan to put a price on pollution, starting at $20 a tonne, which will rise to $50 by 2022. To say that we are going further than that is not based on fact. I do not know where the number comes from; she seems to be making it up.

The hon. member has indicated that average Canadians will be impacted the most. That is simply false. I pointed her earlier to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. I have seen her now blame Liberal policy for the floods that exist in the province of Ontario, when she will not acknowledge the science behind it, which actually demonstrates that human activity is causing climate change.

I sincerely hope, for the sake of honesty in this debate, that the hon. member, during her one-minute rebuttal, will stand up and acknowledge that climate change is real, that it is driven primarily by human activities and that we have an obligation as legislators to do something about it. I would ask that she not go down the path of Doug Ford, who makes cuts left and right. He has cut a budget for planting 50 million trees, cut conservation projects, dismantled the system that was in place that was creating good jobs and boosting the green economy in that province, and dismantled the flood protections that were in place. Then he puts his hands up in the air and says that it seems there must be something happening with these floods.

The something that is happening is climate change. It is driven by people. I invite the hon. member to stand up and acknowledge that, rather than standing here in solitude, being the only member who voted against Canada's adherence to the Paris Agreement in this chamber.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is the position of the Prime Minister, when he showed up for a photo op with his children at Constance Bay on the Ottawa River, that flooding is due to man-made global warming.

Flood victims are asking, “Do we really want to go through this every year, understanding that climate change issues will not soon be resolved by the government?”

One thing we know for sure is that climate change is a world issue, and not one caused by the flood victims. Given that the Prime Minister was quite happy to fly to Paris and give Canadian taxpayer dollars to help rebuild Notre Dame cathedral, and hand out millions in deficit dollars to respond to climate change in other countries, a just and equitable financial settlement for flood victims is reasonable.

We are all in this together. It is time to look after the needs of Canadians.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests that we are all in this together, but she seems to have put herself on an island by opposing Canada's participation in the global effort to reduce our emissions in order to protect our environment, not just for ourselves but for our kids and our grandkids.

I would point the hon. member not only to the documents I referred to in my opening remarks, but if she wants to have a deep dive, she can read the Saskatchewan court decision that came out just recently, examining the constitutionality of our pricing mechanism. It said that pricing GHG emissions “is not just part and parcel of an effective [climate change policy]” but “an essential aspect” to reduce global emissions.

We are moving forward with a plan that is going to reduce emissions, put more money in the pockets of families and put people to work at the same time. I encourage the hon. member to join us in the 21st century.

Poverty

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

Mr. Speaker, I recently asked the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development why, in a country as rich as ours, 1.4 million children are still living in poverty, and more than a third of them rely on food banks. These statistics are alarming and unacceptable.

In its 2018 Hunger Count, the organization Food Banks of Quebec reported that the number of free meals for children has gone up 48.5% since 2013 and that 37.8% of the households that rely on food banks are families with children. The figures for my riding, which were supplied by La Moisson maskoutaine, show that 34.1% of the people receiving food assistance are children under 17. That is one-third. It is a huge number.

Food banks across Canada are doing amazing work, and I want to take a moment in the House to thank them for their dedication and their efforts. I especially want to thank the organizations in my riding, their volunteers, their boards of directors and the people who work there day after day. They are making life easier for the people of Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale.

With regard to food assistance, I am especially thinking of the Centre de bénévolat de St-Hyacinthe, the Centre de bénévolat d'Acton Vale, the Comptoir-partage La Mie and La Moisson maskoutaine.

In the riding, there are many organizations that do extraordinary work every day for those much less fortunate. I am thinking of ACEF Montérégie-est, the Centre Louise Bibeau and La Clé sur la porte.

Back in March, when the most recent Hunger Count was being compiled, La Moisson maskoutaine reported giving food aid to over 2,300 people across the RCM, including close to 200 children. It provided 31,751 kilograms of food to 13 organizations across the region and fed thousands of families and individuals who live with food insecurity. Specifically, 2,312 people received food assistance that month alone. I thank these organizations for their tremendous and essential work.

I also want to take the time to thank the organizations that work with and strongly support our children and young people.

I would like to thank all these organizations' members, volunteers and boards of directors. I am thinking about: Sylvie Joubert, Martin Rivard and Sylvie Caouette, from the Club Optimiste d'Acton Vale; Sylvie Carbonneau and Linda Proulx from the Club Optimiste de Douville, and particularly for their Tribute to the Youth activity; the Centre d'intervention-jeunesse des Maskoutains; Jeunes en santé and its coordinator, Jezabelle Legendre; Espace carrière; Grands Frères Grandes Soeurs de la Montérégie; the JAG, which stands for Jeunes Adultes Gai-e-s; and the Maison le Baluchon, where I worked for over a decade.

These people and others in my riding truly care about working with young people and children to improve their quality of life. Let's not forget the Maison jeunesse L'Oxy-bulle de Roxton, the Maison des jeunes de Saint-Hyacinthe, the Maison des jeunes d'Acton Vale, the Maison des jeunes des Quatre-Vents, the Table de concertation jeunesse maskoutaine and the Grand Galop, under the direction of Chantal Pelletier.

A simple expression of thanks in this debate pales in comparison to the incredible reach of their actions. I am well aware of that. I just want them to know that I continue to support them and have the greatest admiration for them. People like them make me proud to be from that riding and represent it as a member of Parliament.

In their name—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for giving me the opportunity to talk about poverty in Canada.

This gives us a chance as a government to discuss the first-ever poverty reduction strategy in the country, and we need to do that. Poverty affects all of us, regardless of the socio-economic circumstance in which we find ourselves.

Poverty affects all of us.

It affects children, seniors, Canadians with disabilities, men, women, visible minorities and recent immigrants as well as indigenous people. The unfortunate thing about poverty is that it does not discriminate.

Our first-ever poverty reduction strategy commits to reducing real poverty by 20% by 2020 and 50% by 2030. However, these numbers are never going to be good enough until they reach 100% . Until it is entirely eliminated in this country, no government has the right, let alone the opportunity, to rest on its laurels. It has to work harder. We have to eliminate poverty in this country, in particular for the issue that was raised by the member and my colleague opposite, the poverty that confronts children. No child in this country, or on this planet in fact, should live in poverty. We are committed to finding and using every tool of government to eradicate poverty wherever we find it in this country and to work with the leadership of affected communities to make sure that, whether they are living in rural Canada, on the coasts of Canada, in the centre, in the cities or in rural communities or self-governing reserves in provinces or territories, we work together to eliminate poverty.

The opportunity for all program builds on a number of the flagship measures this government has implemented and invested in since the day we took office. We have made significant investments for children, seniors, low-wage workers and other Canadians who find themselves living in vulnerable circumstances.

For example, the Canada child benefit has helped to lift more than half a million people, including 300,000 children, out of poverty in Canada. Single mothers have seen their poverty rates decline by 30% since 2015. In the city I represent, the city of Toronto, which has one of the highest rates of child poverty in Canada, 52% of single mother-led households are now living above the poverty line as a result of investments we have made directly in their lives, in their children's lives, in the housing system, in the transit system, in the day care system and the health care system. We have made a profound difference, but we are not at zero. Until we are at zero, we have work to do and sleeves to roll up.

We have also introduced the guaranteed income supplement, which targets single seniors, primarily women. For women who did not earn enough in the workplace and were discriminated against historically in this country over generations, we have made sure that their Canada pension plan and guaranteed income supplement are boosted to help lift them out of poverty as well.

There is now the Canada workers benefit.

As well, we have made a series of other investments, including a $55 billion investment in the national housing strategy, which aims to lift 500,000 Canadians out of core housing need within the next 10 years.

We are making progress beyond, I think, even the expectations of the parties opposite. We have made substantial progress. However, as I said, the work must continue. I can assure the member opposite the work will continue, because even though we have hit our 2020 targets a year early, that does not mean we cannot get to 2030 even sooner.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear my colleague say that even one poor person is one too many. We need to continue to fight poverty. I talked about some organizations in my riding. It is on their behalf that I will continue the fight and never give up.

It would be nice to hear government representatives talk more about the work that still needs to be done, rather than boast about what has been done. There are still 1.4 million children living in poverty in this country. That is far too many. We must focus on what still needs to be done.

Yes, we have taken some steps in the right direction, but in order to stay on course towards the goal of eliminating poverty, we need to stay focused on what remains to be done and on the challenges in front of us. We need to make sure that, in a country as rich as ours, no one lives in poverty.

I therefore repeat my question. When will the government take the next steps to lift children out of poverty?

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

Mr. Speaker, I honestly want to thank the member opposite. She has a been a strong, steady and consistent voice on the issues of social justice and, in particular, on eliminating poverty not just in her riding but in ridings right across the country. I have a great deal of respect and affection for her persistence and dedication to this.

I also have a concern that has to be spoken to, because as good as our government has been, as hard as our government has worked and as strong as the investments in child care, housing, poverty reduction and the Canada child benefit have been, we have provincial governments now in power in this country, in particular in the province I come from, that have literally declared war on children's services.

As we step forward as a federal government and do all the good things we are doing, we have a government in the province I come from that has cut teachers and classrooms, cut libraries for students, cut meal programs for children and cut the child advocate, the very person who advocates for children in the province of Ontario. It has cut program after program. The party behind this slash-and-burn campaign to wipe out services that support kids in vulnerable situations is the Conservative Party of Ontario. If Mr. Ford continues—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to order adopted May 24 and pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:47 p.m.)