Debates of May 7th, 2019

Member for Langley—Aldergrove

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank all hon. members for their interventions. It has been a real privilege to be here today and a real privilege to serve with the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today. I am also very pleased to see the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove. He has been a mentor to all of us who were voted into Parliament in 2015. His passion, his conviction, his integrity, his honesty and certainly his faith, as well, have been an inspiration to us all. I wish him all the best.

I also want to advise, Mr. Speaker, that I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

I want to remind the House that we are here today debating an opposition motion that was put by the member for Carleton. Having gone through a lot of emotion and a lot of discussion, I want to remind the House what the motion is about:

That the House call on the government to stop raising the price of gas by clearing the way for pipelines and eliminating the carbon tax on fuel.

The carbon tax is an issue that has dominated the House for a number of years. I will say right off the bat, as the Conservative member of Parliament for Barrie—Innisfil, that as I go around the riding and I talk to our constituents, I can say that they do want to see action the Canadian government can use to combat the issue of climate change and greenhouse gases. However, I can say unequivocally that there are many people, a majority in my riding, who do not believe that a carbon tax is the right method to achieve our goals.

The other thing constituents would like to see is Canada taking a role in terms of global leadership on the issue of climate change. I know that it is well documented that our emissions are significantly low, and that is not to diminish the issue or the challenges with respect to this. However, if this is a global problem, then it requires global leadership. There are countries around the world, four combined, that make up almost 60% of global greenhouse gas emissions and impact climate change. It is indeed a global problem, and we, as Canadians, have a role to play in mitigating the impacts of global climate change.

On the issue of the gas tax and the carbon tax and the fuel tax, one of the challenges is that there are many people, particularly in my riding, who feel that this is not a true environmental plan. What the government and the Liberals have proposed is, in fact, a tax plan.

There has been a lot of mention today during debate of the fact that B.C. has instituted a carbon tax. While sincere in its intent in terms of being revenue neutral, the evidence suggests otherwise, and it is now a strong revenue generator for the B.C. government. There has been a lot of talk around here about the potential of that happening in the future.

This year, the price is $20 a tonne. We know, through the government's own documents, that the Liberals are going to be raising it to $50 a tonne. In fact, there have been suggestions that it could be as high as $300 a tonne, so make no mistake that it is the intention of the government to continue to raise the carbon tax and the price per tonne, meaning that Canadians will pay more with respect to higher fuel prices.

They will pay more not only for the price of gas but for heating homes. In fact, it will have a cascading effect across the economy as manufacturers and producers who are now paying the carbon tax will pass that tax on to consumers. It will impact the price of everything: the price of groceries, the price of clothing, and the price of any consumable product that exists.

Recent polling suggests that 58% of Canadians cannot meet their obligations. In fact, they are $200 away from insolvency every month, and 24% of Canadians cannot meet their obligations on a monthly basis.

Any suggestion that imposing a carbon tax is going to somehow make people better off when that cascading effect go down the line and ends up impacting the necessities of life, which they can barely afford now, is disingenuous.

The government has, of course, talked about a carbon tax rebate. I can use a very practical example in that regard. My elderly parents, who filed their taxes recently, got back $260, but what are they going to do with that money? They are not going to change their habits. They are not going to heat their home any less. They are not going to pull back on their obligations, because living in Barrie, they do have to travel places. That $260 rebate will be eaten up very quickly. In fact, the price for them to survive is much greater than that.

The funny thing about this carbon tax rebate is that the government gave this back in an election year. In my parents' case, it was $260. If the stated purpose of a carbon tax is to, as the Prime Minister has said, and as we have heard Liberal members debate today, change the habits of Canadians so that they use less carbon in their daily uses, how is it an incentive? This is the thing I have not been able to reconcile in my mind, and I know that a lot of Canadians across the country are questioning this in terms of government policy. How is paying people back money going to change those habits?

I have spoken to my parents, and they are not going to do anything differently. They still have to drive their car. They still have to get to their doctor's appointments. People who live in areas outside the inner cities, and I talk specifically about the 905 all the time, are not going to change their habits. They are still going to have to drive to work. In some cases, if people live in Oakville and work in Mississauga, they have to drive to work. If people live in Barrie or Innisfil and work in Mississauga or Markham, there is no public transit system in place at this moment that would cause people to change their habits. Any suggestion at all that this is going to change the habits of individuals is foolhardy and is not truthful.

As I said earlier, the issue here is that it is a global problem, and it requires global solutions. It requires global leadership. I believe that Canada has a role to play in that. Recently I was in Taiwan, which held a referendum. They are looking at moving away from coal-fired generating plants. They are looking to move away from nuclear because of living in the region they do. There was a company, Northland Power, here in Canada, that was awarded an $8-billion contract to provide offshore wind turbines.

Canada has a role to play, with our technology, with our ingenuity and with our innovation, on the global stage. However, we also have an obligation to build pipelines. That is the basis of the debate today. My worry, and I have said this publicly and to my colleagues when the Trans Mountain pipeline was built, is that having lived through the experience in Ontario, where gas plants were cancelled and $2 billion was wasted, my fear on the Trans Mountain pipeline is that the Liberal government bought the pipeline to control it and eventually kill it.

I say that because, as I have said publicly before, the Liberal government playbook for Ontario is the same Liberal government playbook that is being used at the federal level. We saw it with the gas plant scandal, and I fear that we are going to see it with the Trans Mountain pipeline.

I look forward to our leader presenting an environmental plan to Canadians, an environmental plan that will be presented well in advance of the next election. What I look forward to the most is Canada's role, not only to address the situation here domestically, and there will be a strong emphasis on that, but to initiate global leadership on the part of Canada to work with those that are the biggest emitters in the world.

The Prime Minister himself said that even if Canada were to shut down everything tomorrow, we would have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. I suggest that we have an opportunity, and Canada's Conservatives will present that in advance of the next election.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a price on pollution not making a difference in lowering our GHG emissions. We have an example here in Canada, British Columbia, which has not only had one of the fastest-growing economies in the country but also one of the fastest-growing populations in the country. However, since it has brought about its price on pollution in 2008, it has lowered its GHG emissions. As importantly, it has lowered its GHG emissions intensity substantially.

The member talked about the affordability of a price on pollution, yet I do not know if he has looked at the report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an office that was appointed by the previous Harper government. It stated clearly that the vast majority of Canadians will benefit from the rebate we will be giving back to the citizens who live in the provinces in which the revenue was generated. I would like to ask him if he is aware of the rebate and aware of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report stating that it is going to benefit those who are the most vulnerable in our society.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are diverging facts with respect to British Columbia. In fact, we now know, as I stated in my speech, that the B.C. government is using all of the revenue for its own purposes; it is not in fact revenue neutral. There are also indications as well that emissions have started to go up in British Columbia. As well, as we heard from the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent several times in this House, it is also the situation in Quebec, albeit marginal, but emissions are going up there as well.

Therefore, I would ask the hon. member a very simple rhetorical question. We know that in other areas of Canada it is going to cost a lot more than people will get back. I used my parents' situation anecdotally as evidence; they are getting $260 back. This is the problem for those people who live outside of those main urban areas, like the member who asked the question. The difficulty is that they are going to be disproportionately affected because they do not have access to mass transit. They have to drive, and it is going to cost them more. They are going to continue to heat their homes and buy the necessities of life. That is the difficulty with the math in the equation on the other side.

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

Mr. Speaker, getting back to some of the conversation over the last couple of minutes regarding B.C. and greenhouse gas emissions, B.C. is in a unique situation because of its ability to generate hydroelectric power. There have been incredible investments made by BC Hydro to improve the production of hydroelectric power through the hydro generating stations there. Revelstoke Dam is one example. Improvements were made in the flow systems and the turbines in multiple situations there. That is where we can find reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It is not going to come from a carbon tax. Everyone in B.C. still needs to drive to get to work, although there are a few in certain areas who have access to public transit.

I would like to ask the member for Barrie—Innisfil if he feels it would make much more sense to get fuel to our markets and keep our prices low so that we can be competitive and also drive those incentives for lower emissions through hydro generation and so on.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question on our side that we believe that getting our product to refineries and to market will certainly help reduce the price of fuel.

The member also brings up an interesting point, the fact that Canadian ingenuity, technology and innovation are world-class and world-leading. An example is carbon capture technology. These are the things we can do.

Canadian companies are already doing a lot. Canadian families are doing a lot. Everybody recognizes their own obligation to leave a better planet and a better world to our children. However, we as Canadians also have an obligation. We understand that this is a global problem, and sometimes we feel guilty for not doing enough when we are doing a large part. As we go forward, the challenge for us as Canadians is to make sure we ensure through our technology, our interventions and our bilateral and multilateral arrangements with other countries that they do their part. We have a role to play on the global stage, and Canada and Canada's Conservatives will make sure that we do.

Oral Questions

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not think the time was opportune earlier, but I am rising on a point of order coming out of question period.

A number of members commented that recognition of speakers is dependent on some kind of a formula. As you know, Mr. Speaker, recognition of speakers rising to speak in the House of Commons is a matter of members' catching the eye of the Speaker, not a matter of lists or formulas, according to the Standing Orders. This is an important point of order to put on the record.

If the Chair has something to clarify for members who misstated that process during question period, I think it would be worthwhile.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his additional comments on an earlier point that was raised. He is not incorrect in saying that in fact members are recognized by getting the eye of the Chair. Members also recognize that although it is not formally the case, it is the practice generally that there is a list around which the Chair does operate. That is in accordance also with the wishes of the parties and the usual channels here in the House.

In a way we are saying that both are correct, and Chairs are certainly persuaded when members ensure that they stay within those practices.

I thank the hon. member for his additional comments on the matter.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Natural Resources

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I am very honoured to rise in the House today. I would like to say hello to the many people of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching. I saw them late last week at the Grand bazar du Vieux-Limoilou, the Patro Roc-Amadour community centre and the 52nd Salon de Mai craft fair, which was held at Promenades Beauport mall. Congratulations to the organizers.

I would also like to say that we are all very sad to hear that our colleague from Langley—Aldergrove is fighting a serious cancer. He just gave a powerful speech that reminded us how fragile life is. I even spoke to my wife and children to tell them that I love them. Our colleague gave a very poignant speech about that. I thank him for his years of service to Canada and to the House of Commons, and for all the future years that he will devote himself to his community.

Before I say anything about the Conservative Party motion now before us, I would like to say a quick word about what U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said yesterday. At a meeting of the Arctic Council in Finland, he had the gall to say that Canada’s claim of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage is illegitimate. He even compared us to Russia and China, referring to their behaviour and their propensity to annex territories, like Russia did in Ukraine. Personally, I find that shameful.

I would like to remind the U.S. government that we have been their allies for a long time. President Reagan and Prime Minister Mulroney reached an agreement, which both parties signed, and which stipulated that Canada indeed has sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. In the 19th century, we launched a number of expeditions and explorations supported by the British Crown, and Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage and in the Arctic Archipelago is entirely legitimate.

Today we are discussing the importance of the oil industry and the importance of climate change. These two issues go hand in hand. They are key issues today and will continue to be in the future. Of course, I believe that the environment is extremely important. It is important for all Conservatives and for all Canadians. I remember collecting all sorts of bottles and cans along the roadside as a boy. I often did that with my father. He is an example for me in that respect. Throughout my life, I have always wanted to be a part of community organizations where people pick up garbage.

I am also very proud of most Canadian governments' environmental record. They have always endeavoured to meet the expectations of Canadians, for whom the environment is extremely important. Most of the time, the Liberals try to paint the Conservatives as anti-environment. I can assure my colleagues that I have never seen anything to support that in the Conservative Party. On the contrary, under Mr. Harper, we took important steps to lower greenhouse gas emissions in Canada by 2.2% between 2006 and 2015. I will come back to that later.

There are two approaches being proposed in the current debate on climate change. This applies to several western countries. I say western countries because those are the countries affected, given that our industrial era has been well established for two centuries. There are some industries that have been polluting rather significantly for a long time. We have reached a point in our history where we realize that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are playing a very significant role in climate change.

Yes, we must act, but there are two possible approaches. One is the Liberal Party approach of taxing Canadians even more. The Liberals are asking Canadians to bear the burden of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The approach the Conservatives prefer is not to create a new tax or to tax the fuel that Canadians put in their cars to go to work every day.

Our approach is rather to help Canadians in their everyday lives and to help the provinces implement their respective environmental plans.

For example, I always like to remind the Canadians listening to us, as well as all environmentalists, that we set up the Canada ecotrust in 2007-08. This $1.3-billion program was meant to allocate funds to the provinces so that they could deal in their own way with the major concerns associated with climate change and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. That is a fine example of how we want to help people.

Jean Charest was premier of Quebec at the time. We provided $300 million to help Quebec implement its GHG emissions reduction plan. Mr. Harper and Mr. Charest gave a joint press conference, and even Mr. Guilbeault from Greenpeace said that the Canada ecotrust was a significant, important program.

We did the same thing for Ontario, British Columbia and all the other provinces that wanted to join the ecotrust. It is very likely that the program allowed the Government of Ontario to implement its own program and close its coal-fired power plants.

As a result, under the Harper government, GHG emissions in Canada dropped by 2.2%. It bears repeating, since that is the approach we will adopt with our current leader, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. In a few weeks, we will announce our environmental plan, which has been keenly anticipated by all Canadians, and especially by the Liberal government. It will be a serious plan. It will include environmental targets that will allow Canada and Canadians to excel in the fight against climate change. In particular, we will maintain our sound approach, which is to help the provinces. By contrast, the government prefers to start constitutional squabbles with them by imposing taxes on Canadians, overstepping its jurisdiction in the process, since environmental matters fall under provincial jurisdiction.

I would like to use Quebec as an example, as my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent did this morning. I have here a report on Quebec's inventory of greenhouse gas emissions in 2016 and their evolution since 1990. It was tabled by the new CAQ government last November, and it is very interesting. In 2016, greenhouse gas emissions increased in Quebec, despite the fact that the carbon exchange made its debut in 2013. That is ironic. Despite the implementation of a fuel tax to cut down on fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, emissions actually went up.

The same report also indicates that between 1990 and 2015, greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec decreased even though the carbon exchange had not been fully implemented. The conclusion explains how this happened:

The decrease in GHG emissions from 1990 to 2016 is mainly due to the industrial sector. The decrease observed in this sector resulted from technical improvements in certain processes, increased energy efficiency and the substitution of certain fuels.

That is exactly what we, the Conservatives, want to do. Instead of imposing a new tax on Canadians, we want to maintain a decentralized federal approach. We want to help the provinces adopt greener energy sources to stimulate even greener economic growth and the deindustrialization of certain sectors, create new technologies and increase innovation in the Canadian economy. That is the objective of a Conservative approach to the environment.

The objective of the Conservative approach to the environment is not to come down hard on the provinces and impose new taxes on Canadians. As we saw with Quebec, that did not have the desired effect. Our objective is to provide assistance while ensuring that our oil industry can grow in a healthy way. That is what Norway did. If I had 10 more minutes, I could talk more about that wonderful country, which has increased its oil production and exports and is one of the fairest and greenest countries in the world.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my opposition colleague for his very interesting speech.

I am very happy to hear that the Conservative Party generally acknowledges that climate change exists, that it is a big problem and that we need to find a way to fix it. I think the debate is about which approach is best.

I agree that there are various approaches, and I am far from an expert on this issue. Quebec, British Columbia and other places like California have had a carbon exchange for many years. This is clearly a very market-based approach. It seems like the approach that best aligns with the Conservative ideology, which is true. That said, another approach is to put a price on pollution. In any case, we need to find a solution. That is what Canadians want.

Could my colleague tell us what he thinks is the best way to combat climate change?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle for her question. I sat with her on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. I have a great deal of respect for her.

Yes, the carbon exchange is a market-based approach. However, as we have seen, Quebec has not achieved the desired results. The purpose of the Canada ecotrust program created under Mr. Harper was to give the provinces a budget and allow them to come up with their own plans to tackle climate change. Canada's greenhouse gas emissions then dropped by 2.2%, a concrete and historic reduction.

What I find unfortunate is that the carbon tax is currently priced at $20 a tonne. It will go up to $50 a tonne by 2020. It seems likely that the Liberals will want to raise it even further if they stay in power in a few months.

What is even more unfortunate is that this tax will not apply to Canada's major emitters, big industries like cement, concrete and coal. They will pay only 8% of the total revenue from the carbon tax, while families and small businesses will have to pay the remaining 92%.

It has been said that it will not apply in Quebec because Quebec already has a carbon tax. However, as we have seen in recent weeks, the price of gas has gone up across Canada, including in Quebec and British Columbia, which already have carbon exchanges.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague, with whom I have the honour of working on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

The only thing that bothers me is that he did not read the environment commissioner's reports carefully enough. She said that any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions during the 10 years that the Harper Conservatives were in office was purely due to the provinces' efforts and the economic recession. It had nothing to do with anything the federal government did. On the contrary, the federal government did not do anything it should have done. Scientists from around the world said that, in order to fight climate change, we had to put a price on carbon, implement a carbon tax.

In his speech, the member also failed to talk about one very important thing. The word “pipeline” is found throughout the motion. Basically, the Conservatives want more pipelines, and they would have us believe that pipelines are part of a plan to fight climate change. They want to bring back the energy east project in Quebec.

How will the energy east pipeline help in the fight against climate change? That makes about as much sense as a pyromaniac firefighter.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague said about energy east is totally false. Energy east is dead and buried. However, he did say that the commissioner of the environment suggested the results might be due to the provinces' efforts. That is exactly how the Conservatives want to approach this. We think the provinces are in the best position to set standards for their industrial sectors and make appropriate changes based on their population, their industries and the environment.

That is exactly what we did. Under the ecotrust program, we transferred funds to the provinces so they could finance certain portions of their climate change programs. My colleague was right when he said the provinces did the work, but it is important to acknowledge that the federal government helped by doing exactly what the founding fathers intended back in 1867.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon a previous speaker talked about the importance of global solutions and global leadership. I would like to cite a couple of very specific examples that a good number of my constituents and, I would ultimately argue, all Canadians can sympathize with.

When I think of global solutions and leadership and look at what is happening around the world, there are a couple of examples that come to my mind offhand. Members will be familiar with the story of the Canadian garbage that was sent to the Philippines. That is something that occurred a number of years ago, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. At that time, the approach was to see if it could be resolved. The garbage would stay in the Philippines, but they would try to work it out.

It then went through a court process, which was fairly exhausting. It has literally taken years to get it to where it is today. There was then a proclamation by President Duterte of the Philippines, one I thought was quite fitting given the importance of our environment. He made the very powerful statement that this garbage from Canada needed to go back to Canada. When the president became engaged, it raised the profile of the issue. As a government, we have responded to that call for action. We believe those 69 containers of garbage should be here in Canada, and we will work to facilitate that.

When we talk about the issue of global solutions and global leadership, it means recognizing the important role Canada has to play, as well as the importance of the way Canada is perceived around the world. The perception of Canada was not positive when there was Canadian garbage in a place it ought not to have been. I am glad we are working the issue through and that those 69 containers will be coming back to Canada.

When we think of leadership, we need to look around at what the world is actually saying. We can see that from the Paris conference. When the Liberals were first elected back in 2015, the Prime Minister, the environment minister and many different provincial governments participated in that Paris climate change conference. One of the leading recommendations back then was to put a price on pollution. That is something that is tangible and real, and that will have an impact in the world, with more and more countries recognizing the value of doing so.

It did not take long for Canada and this current Prime Minister to put into action the ideas that were flowing from there and the ideas that were being talked about during the last federal election. We know how important it is, because we are being told and reminded by Canadians on a daily basis that they want to see action on the environment.

We worked with the different provinces and came up with a formula. We came up with what we believe was a good national program to ensure that it would not be only half the provinces that would have something in place for a price on pollution, but that there would be an obligation for all provinces and territories in Canada to have a price on pollution. We even afforded those provinces that did not have something in place a window of time to put something into place, believing that at the end of the day, like the national government, those local governments would be listening to what the citizens want and expect of government.

Let there be no doubt that Canadians, no matter which region in this beautiful country they are from, support the need for government to take action. I believe the action this government has taken, not just on the price on pollution, although I will focus my attention on that for now, is something Canadians accept.

It is interesting how the politics are ramped up and how much misinformation is out there in the community. The price on pollution will actually be a financial benefit for the residents I represent in Winnipeg North. When the Conservatives spread misinformation on this issue, I would refer Canadians to the independent Parliamentary Budget Office. It is truly independent. There is no partisanship in that office. It is well respected, not only within Canada in terms of the issues it enunciates on, but even beyond our borders. It is genuinely seen as independent.

That office makes it very clear that 80% of Canadians will benefit financially by the climate action incentive. I would suggest that a vast majority of the residents in Winnipeg North will be further ahead financially. Putting the price on pollution is something that is needed today.

Some provinces have it and other provinces do not. Some provinces have set it higher than other provinces, and so forth. From a national perspective we are saying that all provinces and territories need to get engaged on this very important file, and that for provinces that choose not to, there will be a national program.

When members say it is a cash grab, that is absolute, total hogwash. The monies being generated are going back to the provinces with the national program, and 80% of my constituents are going to get a net benefit. It is going right back into their pockets. However, the heavier users, the ones who are causing the larger issue of pollution in our environment, are going to be paying more.

The Government of Canada is not making money from this. We are ensuring that there is a price on pollution in every region of our country, because not all provinces have implemented it. The Conservatives talk a lot about the province of British Columbia and the price of gas. The national program from Ottawa is not being applied in the province of B.C., yet that province is the focus of 85% of the criticisms that are being levelled at this government. When we question members on that issue, they say to get rid of the government in Ottawa and then they will get rid of any other progressive governments in the provinces. Are they going to penalize provinces that are doing good for Canada's environment?

The old Progressive Conservative Party of Brian Mulroney and members of the previous Conservative government of Stephen Harper advocated for a price on pollution, but we are seeing Doug Ford's influence within the national Conservative caucus today. Canadians should be concerned that Doug Ford seems to have more influence in the Conservative caucus in Ottawa than their own leader.

Canadians should be concerned about that. Take a look at what is taking place in the province of Ontario and the backward stepping in terms of the environment. It is being put onto the back burner.

For over a year, Conservatives have being saying they have a plan and will share it with Canadians in due course. That was over a year ago. The days, weeks and months have gone by, even though the environment is an important issue to Canadians. The Conservative Party continues to ignore this very important issue. Rather, the Conservatives choose to take a look at one aspect of our plan and be critical of it. They spread misinformation about it, whether in emails, interviews or words inside this chamber. They have no qualms about misinforming Canadians.

The price on pollution is a good, solid social policy that has been accepted in most provinces and territories, because they have their own. It has been accepted in other countries around the world, and some, even some American states, are working towards it. It seems to me that it is Doug Ford and the Conservative Party here that are so focused on spreading that misinformation, and I find that to be a great disservice.

I said the price on pollution was one aspect. It is one part of some of the things we have been doing. However, the government has been criticized because of the Loblaws issue.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I see at least one Conservative member applauding the criticism that the government has been receiving.

However, members should know that the low-carbon economy challenge fund, which was $450 million, was established by this government. It supports and funds actions by provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous communities, businesses and non-profit organizations all over the country. It is a challenge to come up with ideas that will make a difference on the environment.

There were 54 successful proposals selected, but opposition members singled out only one of those examples, the Loblaws example, in which the Government of Canada is contributing 25% of a $48-million project. This will have a huge impact on the refrigeration industry here in Canada, on the manufacturers and the IT people in Mississauga, where jobs are going to be created. More importantly, there is the actual impact of saying yes to this proposal, the direct result of which is equivalent to taking 50,000 vehicles off Canadian roads annually. This is equivalent to all the vehicles in the city of Brandon, which happens to be Manitoba's second-largest city.

However, the Conservatives and NDP are saying, “Heaven forbid that we work with the private sector.” They take it to the extreme and say that the company is owned by a billionaire or a multimillionaire, so we should not have given that support and possibly the company should not have been eligible.

It seems to me that those members are being selective. Are they trying to say that the Government of Canada should not work with the private sector, that we should not promote, encourage and at times provide the incentives that are necessary to have an impact? Are they going to exclude the private sector? Is that really part of the policy that the Conservatives will come out with?

Some day, hopefully before October 21, we will hear something regarding the Conservatives' environmental plan. Are they dropping a hint by saying on this particular policy that the government has no role working with the private sector and should not be investing public tax dollars in the private sector at all?

Is that really going to be the official opposition's plan going forward?

By the process of elimination, maybe we can narrow it down. We know the Conservatives do not support a price on pollution. They think pollution should be free. I am now beginning to believe that they do not believe government should actually work with the private sector on it.

The Conservative Party is selling Canadians short. Our constituents are saying that there are initiatives we could do as a government that would have a positive impact and a positive outcome: the price on pollution, programs like the ones I just listed, working with different non-profits, governments and the private sector. Those types of initiatives can make a tangible difference.

The Conservatives are critical. It is always interesting to contrast how we are criticized by the New Democrats with how we are criticized by the Conservatives when it comes to pipelines.

For many years, I sat in opposition. I hope to spend just as many years on the government side as I did on the opposition benches. When I was in opposition, Stephen Harper never built one pipeline that went to our coast so we could sell our commodity to different markets. When Stephen Harper first became prime minister, 99% of our product went to the United States. Fast-forward 10 years, and it is still 99%.

One of the reasons why Alberta's oil industry has been hit as hard as it has been over the last couple of years is that Stephen Harper did not get it right. Stephen Harper did not work with indigenous people. He was not sensitive to the needs of the environment. Our courts have clearly demonstrated that to be the case. Members can contrast that with what we have been able to accomplish.

The Conservatives criticize us because of the pipeline purchase. We made a solid commitment to do what we can to move things forward on the issue. We cannot do any worse than Stephen Harper. We just need to look at what he accomplished on that particular file in his 10 years in government. I have no problem with that comparison.

In today's motion, the Conservatives say it is taxes. Again, I would challenge that.

Let us talk about Winnipeg North. With the price on pollution, according to the independent office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 80% or more of my constituents are going to be further ahead financially.

My constituents are also going to be further ahead because our government gave a tax break to Canada's middle class. The Conservatives voted against that.

My constituents are going to be further ahead because our government instituted a Canada child benefit program that is bumping over $9 million a month into Winnipeg North alone.

My constituents are going to be further ahead because our government upped the amount of money, in the neighbourhood of up to $900 a year, going to the poorest seniors in our country, many of whom live in Winnipeg North.

The opposition says that our government needs to give more of a break to Canadians. Time and time again, through budgets and through legislation, that is exactly what we have done and what we will continue to do going forward into the next election.

I eagerly await the comparison between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party because of our record.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 Essex, International Trade; the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, National Defence; and the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Rail Transportation.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how this MP, who is supposed to be representing Winnipeg, prides himself in his apparent knowledge of Ontario provincial politics, but nobody would ever accuse him of deviating from the talking points, I am sure.

What is striking to me about the Liberals' message on the environment is that they say to everyday people, people who are struggling to get ahead, that they have to pay more because of the environment. That is their way to help the environment, to make people pay more. Then they say to big successful companies that they will give them money as a way of helping the environment.

Taking from those who are struggling and giving to those who are doing well is the reverse Robin Hood strategy, all in the name of the environment. I wonder if they could devise an alternative, which is to actually provide incentives and support to everyday people. That is what we did. We had things like the home renovation tax credit. We did not use the environment as an excuse to take money from everyday people. We actually provided support in the context of environmental incentives.

Why will the member not consider that policy and stop using the environment as an excuse to take more money out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the price on pollution is one aspect of good social policy that is going to be making our environment healthier at the end of the day. There are other initiatives that the government has, in fact, taken.

We have invested literally hundreds of millions into looking at infrastructure for public transit and improving it. We are also, through that funding, seeing everything from bus shelters, which does help because more people will use and access buses, to having more efficient buses being purchased. There are many different aspects. I believe the parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment made reference to 45 or 50 different actions that this government has actually taken.

I suggest to the member opposite that he might want to take a look at what other countries are doing and focus his attention, at least for this debate, on the price of pollution. That is the real challenge. Why is the Conservative Party working along with individuals like Doug Ford to try to say no to a price on pollution when so many other countries around the world are recognizing it as a good thing?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions with regard to part of the parliamentary secretary's intervention. He mentioned the good news story of the Philippines, raising the fact that they called the government out for not acting on environmental contaminants in containers that were shipped to the Philippines. I would like him to explain that, because here is what happened.

Dozens of containers of used diapers and other types of contaminants were sent to the Philippines. They were sent in shipping containers and left there. There have been massive protests and civil disruption and a number of other things. President Duterte threatened to take Canada to war because the minister of the environment promised to clean it up and did nothing for a year and a half.

How is it a good news story that it took the Philippines threatening to go to war with Canada because of another Liberal broken promise? It is embarrassing. It is not a moment of pride.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was a private company that dropped trash off in the Philippines many years ago, just so that the member is aware of it. There is a thing called a court process. There were a number of things that were at play. I believe that President Duterte did a big favour, no doubt, in raising the profile of the issue. This is something, at the end of the day, to which our government actually responded.

It is unfortunate that the NDP want to try to make this an issue where, I believe, it is a good news story that the issue is, in fact, being resolved. If the member would like to have a further discussion as to why it has taken this long, I would be more than happy to explain it in more detail to him.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was really glad to hear the parliamentary secretary bring up the gift to Loblaws to upgrade its refrigerators. This company makes billions in profit, yet the Liberal government is giving it a handout to upgrade its refrigerators. Meanwhile, people at home in my riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap have approached me to ask how the government could be so arrogant and ridiculous to provide this company with millions of dollars to upgrade its fridges, when they are struggling to get by with the new taxes that have been put on by the government.

In the latest budget book, entitled “Investing in the Middle Class to Grow Canada's Economy”, a couple of pages describe what I believe is the carbon tax. The Liberals have hidden the tax under “fuel charge proceeds”, and they start out at about $2.1 billion this year. However, on the expenditures page, there is a matching line noting $2.1 billion going out. With respect to projections down the road, the number reaches about $5.6 billion coming in, in these fuel charges, and there are $5.6 billion going out.

How can the government possibly imagine that it can manage $5.6 billion, give out more to the public than it is taking in and still balance the books? The budget is simply not as advertised.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when I used the example of Loblaws, I put it in the perspective of a $48-million proposal. There was a competition in which the private sector was allowed to participate, and through that competition, Loblaws was one of the 52 or 53 applicants that were approved.

As a result of that particular $48-million investment into refrigeration, I believe incredible work will be done in IT. A company located in, I believe, Mississauga will benefit. More importantly, through that one program, the equivalent of 50,000 vehicles are being taken off the road.

This program is open to provinces, territories, indigenous people and non-profit corporations. This is the real question: As part of their future plan, whenever it comes out, are the Conservatives going to allow the private sector to participate in—