House of Commons Hansard #435 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was change.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Madam Speaker, I share many of the concerns of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on this file.
One of the things I find troubling in the current atmosphere is that we seem to be debating the current costs of the carbon tax. I am just wondering if the member could illuminate for the House what the future projections are for the costs of unmitigated climate change and how those will absolutely dwarf any kind of figure we are talking about presently.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, one of the frustrating things about this debate is that it is not about what it costs to take action on climate, but what it saves, and what it saves is human life and our communities. We are looking at a situation within Canada where people died from a heat wave in Montreal.
Last year in Montreal, the heat wave killed seven people, I believe. That happened because of climate change.
Canadians are threatened with respect to infrastructure loss in the many billons of dollars. That is where we are now, at 1°C global average temperature increase.
If even holding to 1.5 as hard as it is will imply billions of dollars more loss every year, then developing countries will need our help. There will be environmental refugees coming here. The costs of inaction far exceed the opportunities that are created to actually revitalize and modernize our economy.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.
“It is an emergency”, the government realized on May 6, the day the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith was elected, doubling the Green Party caucus. “It is an emergency”, the Liberal government said on May 16, over a month ago. In that month, have all the business items the House has dealt with been an emergency? Suddenly, it is an emergency today. The Liberals have moved closure on it and we will vote on the emergency motion introduced four years into their mandate. Only now do they suddenly realize this is an emergency.
If there is an emergency, is it that the Liberals did not realize they would not meet their Paris targets? Is it that they are not in a position to be calling for more ambitious targets?
I remember very well that in 2015, the Liberal government said that the targets of the Conservatives were the floor, not the ceiling, and they were not even on the same story of the building; they were in the basement. The Liberals have declared a climate emergency, but the Conservatives see it for what it is. It is a cynical ploy by the Liberals, who are desperate to distract from not only their own climate failures, but from their many scandals.
This spring has been a rough one for Canadians and for the trust and confidence we have in our institutions. We have the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We have the coordinated and sustained attempt to interfere in the judicial process in Canada. We have the undermining of the rule of law with the concerted effort to destroy Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and his reputation as a way to protect Liberal insiders, which is a trend in both the SNC and the shipbuilding gerrymandering we have seen.
There are a lot of emergencies the Liberals are faced with, but the climate is not one. Certainly their actions demonstrate that to us. We know that real efforts need to be made. We know we need an environmental plan. However, that is not what we got from the Liberal government. We got a tax plan from it.
We know the Liberals will put an unmanageable burden on Canadians. We know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that this burden is going to increase greatly. We know that the price of gas we see at pumps today, which Canadians are struggling to pay, will need to go up almost another 25¢ a litre for the Liberals to hit the Paris targets, which they said were the floor not the ceiling, even though they cannot even come close to them.
There is a lot of flailing coming from the government side of the House, but Canadians should fear not, as help is on the way. A credible environmental plan will be put forward by the Leader of the Opposition this Wednesday. We are very excited. Canadians will be able to see what a credible plan on the environment looks like. They will be able to see what real leadership looks like, not virtue signalling and jet setting. It is an emergency.
The Toronto Raptors won the NBA finals. Carbon footprint aside, the Prime Minister is going to address the emergency in person this very day while we debate the emergency motion? He flew by chartered aircraft to Toronto. Then he flew back. I think he is also flying to Montreal today and then he is going to fly back.
I hear from the government side—
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister is a busy man, connecting with Canadians and doing all sorts of wonderful things. However, the member opposite should know that he is not to make reference to the presence of a member inside the House.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The hon. member cannot say indirectly what he cannot say directly, so I want to remind him to be mindful as he is giving his speech to ensure that he is not indicating who is or is not in the House.
The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader drew to your attention that the Prime Minister was absent. I was in my riding this morning and not here, but here I am now.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Once again, I remind the member to go back to his points and ensure that he does not do indirectly what he should not be doing directly.
The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, as I said, I was in my riding this morning; I am back. We can be in more than one place over the course of a day.
Let us talk about a different day for the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Let us talk about the Prime Minister's famed trip, his illegal vacation to the island of the Aga Khan. The Prime Minister travelled there by private aircraft, and if that was not enough, he took a private helicopter too. I am pretty sure he is not allowed to do that. It might be more egregious than a frivolous point of order in the House. It is actually against the law.
We have a Prime Minister who, in one vacation, emitted more CO2 and his carbon footprint was bigger than that of the average Canadian in a whole year. We have two sets of rules with the Prime Minister. We have one set of rules for him, and we have one set of rules for everybody else. We have a Prime Minister who took a vacation, which is great, because who does not deserve a vacation? However, instead of enjoying something a little closer to home and doing his part to reduce his carbon footprint, he flew to Florida. That is great, beautiful, and I hope the weather was nice. However, there was a photo op in Ottawa, so he flew back by private aircraft. When the photo op was complete, he flew back to Florida. What does one do at the end of a trip? One flies back home again.
He is entitled to one vacation a year. However, I hear the waves were pretty gnarly in B.C., so off to Tofino the Prime Minister goes, on a surfing vacation across the country, and then he flies back to Ottawa. We have two sets of rules, and we deserve better than that.
As I mentioned, Canadians can look forward to the credible plan that our Conservative leader will put forward this Wednesday, one that does not have two sets of rules, one that Canadians can count on and one where Canadians know they are not going to be taxed for heating their homes and driving their kids to soccer. It is a plan where Canadians who are within $200 of insolvency are not going to have to look at tax after successive tax after tax, as they do with the current government.
Now, the Liberals have said they are not going to raise the carbon tax. However, this is from the same government that promised, when the Prime Minister looked Canadians right in the eye, that the government was going to balance the budget in 2019. The government's own documents now say that the budget will not be balanced until after 2040.
Canadians deserve better, and they will get that. They will get a credible plan from the Conservatives, and they will be able to see real leadership in action when they elect a Conservative government in October. Action is required, but we do not have an emergency, except the political emergency that has come from the failures of the Liberal government.
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague.
I wonder how the Conservatives plan to combat climate change and when they will release this plan. It has been more than 400 days since their leader said he would release it.
Do the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes and his Conservative colleagues believe that we are in a climate emergency?
Will you support the motion?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I remind the member that she must address the Chair and not the member himself.
The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague will note that, as I mentioned more than once in my speech, on Wednesday of this week we are going to hear the plan that a Conservative government will implement to protect our environment. It will be real vision and real leadership.
Will I support a motion that there is an emergency? If the motion were that there is a political emergency that the government is facing, I could agree with that. That is what I will say.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Madam Speaker, I was curious about the part of the speech where the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes was talking about the carbon tax. I do acknowledge that, by itself, it is not going to produce results and that it has to be part of a whole suite of options.
However, it seems to me that the Conservative position is based on the premise that people's behaviour will not change, when in my own riding I am seeing a lot more electric vehicles come out. If we have those eco-energy retrofits of homes and if we electrify our energy grid, we are going to create opportunities for people to use less carbon and therefore pay less of a price on pollution.
I say this with the greatest respect. I am simply curious. People's behaviour is going to change. Would the member not agree that eventually this is going to lead them to pay less of a price on pollution in the future?
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, members will recall that it was a Conservative government that put forward great incentives for Canadians to be able to make changes in their life, invest in their home and use more sustainable and innovative ways of heating their homes, for example. I owned a home that had a geothermal system in it, and it was fantastic. It was the best heat. On the Internet, we see charts of which type of heat is hottest in a house. The most consistent heat we had in our home was geothermal.
The Conservatives were able to put forward this plan through which Canadians were able to invest and receive a rebate from government, but they did not get taxed, and we saw a positive outcome as a result of it.
Peter Schiefke LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction
Madam Speaker, first I would like to clarify one thing for my hon. colleague. It was the Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, who came into power and cut subsidies for hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles. I remember that because I bought one of those vehicles and was not able to benefit.
During the member's speech, he mentioned many times that this is not a climate emergency. He did not speak about the fact that his party has no plan. I understand that, so he had nothing really to talk about.
However, if he is not going to read the literature around the world that proves climate change is happening and is having an effect on us all, then perhaps the hon. member would like to come to my riding, where, in the last two years, we have seen two once-in-a-century storms. Perhaps, he would even come and help me fill some sandbags to help protect the people in my community. Maybe that will help to convince him that climate change is real and it is an emergency.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, I would love the opportunity to knock on some doors for a strong Conservative candidate in the member opposite's riding, where we can share with residents the strong Conservative vision on how we can protect our environment without taxing Canadians. I would love the opportunity to do just that.
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to commend my colleague from Ontario, who embraced the think globally, act locally movement by installing a geothermal system in his home. That is an excellent way to heat a home and reduce our carbon footprint. He took advantage of financial support from the previous government through the eco-energy retrofit program.
I will have a hard time staying within my speaking time for such an important and critical issue that affects the environment, sustainable development and, of course, climate change.
I want to tell those watching that in 2015, Canada made a commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30%, relative to 2005 levels, by 2030.
I will start with some very good news. Between 2005 and 2015, Canada reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 2.2%. This shows that when the provinces, federal government, municipalities and citizens work together, we can achieve real results and make progress towards achieving our target.
Indeed, this target was reached back then by Stephen Harper's government. I have a story about this that I would like to share. When I was elected in 2006, the previous environment minister, Stéphane Dion—I would like to say hello to him, if he is listening—and the provincial environment minister at the time, Thomas Mulcair, were at loggerheads. Quebec was unable to get federal money to implement its green plan. What did our Conservative government do? It put in place the EcoTrust fund. Not only did Quebec receive the money it requested, but $1.5 billion was allocated to the provinces so they could implement their green plans. The result was, as I mentioned earlier, a 2.2% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions during that decade.
This work requires collaboration, partnerships and investments in technologies.
I would remind my colleague who spoke about measures earlier, that it was a Conservative government that gradually brought to an end the accelerated capital cost allowance for the oil sands. It also encouraged natural resource businesses by giving them tax incentives to operate in an environmentally friendly way and to reduce their carbon footprint.
That is just one example among many others. Unfortunately, this stands in sharp contrast to our situation since 2015.
According to all the experts, including Mr. Suzuki, the commissioner of the environment and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada is going to miss the targets. What is unfortunate is that the Liberals currently have no structure or tools in place to reach our targets. On the contrary, there are mechanisms in place to make it look like the targets will be met. What is the best way of making it look like you are doing something? Obviously, it is to tax the middle class. That is exactly what the Liberals are doing.
Whenever we ask them about the repercussions of the tax they are going to impose on taxpayers, the carbon tax, as they call it, they refuse to answer. They are incapable of telling us how effective their tax will be. They cannot even tell us how much it will contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
What we do know, however, and what all the experts are saying, is that they are off the mark. It is unfortunate, because the people listening to us want effective action.
Before they get even more depressed over the disaster that the Liberals are steering us into, I want to talk about an initiative in my riding called the Coop FA. For those who like a little more background, I can add that the full name of this well-known organization is Coopérative Forêt d'Arden. This social economy enterprise won a Pléiades award of excellence in 2018. I want to commend this organization for realizing that what was needed was local action. This co-operative carries out environmental outreach with students, members of the public and organizations to inspire environmentally responsible behaviour.
To date, it has educated over 5,000 young people on the importance of being environmentally responsible and shrinking their carbon footprint. Statistics show that actions taken by children aged six to nine can be equivalent to taking several hundred cars off the road. That shows that the Coop FA is planting the right seed, because the next generation will be keenly aware of these issues and the importance of individual and collective action.
I also want to note that the Paris Agreement is based on targets that were set by our government. We could even go back as far as the first Rio Summit, in 1992, where we were represented by former Conservative minister Jean Charest. I think it has been clearly demonstrated that the Liberals' record is abysmal. The carbon tax is a failure, they are going to miss the targets and the middle class is going to pay the price. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that 92% of the total revenue from the carbon tax will come from middle-class families, leaving just 8% for big polluters, who also have access to mechanisms for reducing their taxes.
I would like to quote something Mr. Charest said at the Rio summit. At the time, Mr. Mulroney's Conservative government was in power and the Progressive Conservatives had a very good environmental record, just as we do. In retrospect, Mr. Charest realized we needed to act faster because climate phenomena were intensifying. Here is what he said:
I think we have made major progress, but we have not reached the goal we set for ourselves in 1992, which was to help the economy shift toward truly sustainable development.... That's the kind of development we want, development that will enable us to construct policies that really push us toward better choices. Plus, that work has to be sustained for many years.
There is no denying the climate emergency has been around for decades. As far back as 1972, the Club of Rome and the Brundtland report sounded the alarm. This issue is too important to let politicians use it as a bargaining chip. That is why we plan to keep going in the same direction, which means implementing concrete, proven measures that have enabled Canada to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions without burdening the middle class. That is the plan we will put forward, and it will have three pillars.
First, we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Second, we need to adapt to climate change and implement mitigation measures. Third, we need to make our communities more resilient to potential disasters, which we did when I was public safety minister. We made investments in that regard.
In closing, I want to say that we have a responsible approach to climate change, unlike some political parties that are hiding their heads in the sand. We need oil to make the transition to renewable energy. We believe that it is better to use Canadian energy sources ethically and responsibly than to use foreign energy sources that are not developed safely and responsibly from countries whose values are often the complete opposite of Canada's.
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, the Conservatives are finally supposed to table the environmental plan that they promised to provide over 400 days ago. I would like to know whether the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis and his Conservative colleagues believe that there is a climate emergency.
If so, will they support our motion?
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
The issue is so important that we cannot allow the Liberals to squander Canada's opportunities to take a leadership role in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Canada's emissions represent less than 2% of global emissions. That is why it is important to be a leader by taking an international approach. The Liberals, however, are failing miserably, both on the domestic and international fronts.
I would tell my colleague to stay tuned because the plan is coming. I can assure her that it will be based on our many success stories. She need only look at the Conservatives' budgets during the Harper decade. She will see many measures that were put in place and were successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Madam Speaker, I am the vice-chair on the environment committee, and last week we heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer on the relationship between carbon taxes and the reduction of GHG and also the backstop plan, as it is called, that is being put forward by the federal government. The PBO said there is a direct relationship between having a carbon tax and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and he said that very clearly.
Second, I believe it is important to not always park truth at the door here. I do not often support what the Liberals are saying, but the PBO also said that 80% of Canadians would get a bigger rebate than the price in carbon tax was going to cost them. The wealthiest 20% would probably pay more than they would get in a rebate.
I would like to hear the member's comments on what the PBO presented at the environment committee last week on those two aspects.
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.
The carbon tax has been tried, and it is not working. Actually, it is a tax grab. The only one to benefit is the government, which gets more money in its pocket. Unfortunately, in a province like mine, we see some of the initiatives being put forward with this tax grab as a total failure, and the Liberals have just given us an example. They were subsidizing fridges for a national company, while our small grocery retailers have to pay for this themselves and have to pay the same carbon tax.
We agree on the goal. Obviously, the Liberal plan is a failure. It has been demonstrated in the past that we can get there without a tax grab. That is what we have done in the past and what we intend to continue to do.
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, my colleague talked about young people being environmentally responsible, saying that that is the way to go. I would just remind him that a network called the Établissements verts Brundtland, comprising several green schools in Quebec, was created in the 1990s. People have already started adopting environmentally responsible behaviour. However, that is not going to solve the climate crisis. The elephant in the room is oil and gas, fossil fuels, the oil sands.
What could the Conservatives propose when they want to develop the oil sands at all costs? What could a Conservative government propose to resolve the climate crisis or, at least, to start working on it?
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for having a fully electric vehicle. Based on my recent conversations with her, it is working really well.
Unfortunately, we still need oil. The best-selling vehicle in Quebec is the Ford F-150. It is all well and good to attack the oil sands, but gas use is the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions. I prefer to use Canadian oil rather than unethical oil from another country. This allows us to reinvest in our social services and in our community.
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
Climate change and its impacts are global in nature and complex. Advancing our understanding of climate change in Canada is a key priority for our government, and we believe that a rigorous evidence base is foundational to make sound policy decisions and to take action on climate change.
This past April, we released Canada’s Changing Climate Report, which lays out a comprehensive look into how Canada’s climate has changed in the past and how it may change in the future. The assessment confirms, through overwhelming evidence, that Canada’s climate has warmed in the past and will continue to warm in the future as a result of carbon emissions from human activity. On average, this warming has been double the global rate, with even faster rates of warming in the Arctic.
The effects of this rapid warming are widespread and alarming. Extreme weather events, such as flooding, are expected to become more frequent and intense in the future. In 2017, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles experienced the flood of the century. In 2019, flooding hit Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac, which is right next to my riding. Everyone could see what was happening on the news. These extreme events will be increasingly common in the future.
The availability of fresh water is changing, leading to increased risk of droughts in the summer. Sea level rise will put our coastal communities at risk. We are already seeing profound impacts in Canada on human health and well-being, the environment and all sectors of the economy. Recent extreme weather events, like the 2019 floods in Ontario and Quebec I just mentioned, wildfires in British Columbia in 2017 and the Fort McMurray wildfires in 2016, underscore this urgent need for action to better prepare Canadians to adapt to climate change.
The emotional and financial shock of losing homes and businesses to fire, flooding and storm surges is having lasting impacts on Canadians' lives and well-being.
Through the findings of Canada's Changing Climate Report, we know that the need to act is undeniable. Mobilizing action on adaptation will help protect Canadians from climate change risks, build resilience and ensure that society continues to thrive in a changing climate. The scope of the challenge we are facing requires co-operation, leadership, creativity and commitment.
To meet this challenge, the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, adopted on December 9, 2016, sets out our national plan for meeting Canada's GHG emissions reduction target, building resilience to the impacts of climate change and enabling clean growth and jobs through investments in technology, innovation and infrastructure.
Recognizing that climate resilience is a long-term challenge, adaptation and climate resilience is one of the four pillars of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.
Under the adaptation and climate resilience pillar of the pan-Canadian framework, federal, provincial and territorial governments made commitments to address the significant risks posed by climate change, particularly in Canada’s northern and coastal regions and for indigenous peoples.
It represents the first time that federal, provincial, and territorial governments have identified priority areas for collaboration to build resilience to a changing climate across the country. To support the pan-Canadian framework, the federal government has launched a broad suite of adaptation programming.
In Budget 2017, our government announced $260 million for federal adaptation programs related to information and capacity, climate-resilient infrastructure, human health and well-being, vulnerable regions and climate-related hazards and disaster risks.
Building on these commitments, we are also investing $22 billion in green and resilient infrastructure to both boost economic growth and build resilient communities.
These investments include $9.2 billion for bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories, with funding specifically allocated for adaptation and climate-resilient infrastructure.
This also includes $2 billion for a disaster mitigation and adaptation fund for built and natural, large-scale infrastructure projects that build the resilience of our infrastructure to natural disasters, extreme weather events and climate change.
This $2-billion fund is very important, as it will help us to adapt. This is particularly important in the Mille-Îles and Montreal regions, where we have experienced significant climate change resulting in the recent flooding.
Since the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund launched in 2018, our government has announced funding for 26 projects that will help communities across the country cope, adapt to, prepare for and withstand extreme storms, flooding and fire.
We are also ensuring that our future infrastructure investments are taking climate change and its impacts into account. Under Canada’s infrastructure plan, applicants who seek federal funding for major infrastructure projects, from transit projects to community centres, are asked to assess the risks they face as a result of climate change and how these risks can be mitigated. This initiative is helping us build climate-smart infrastructure and ensuring that we are not locking in climate risks for decades to come.
Adaptation is not just about building the biggest and strongest infrastructure. It is also about how we build communities that are sustainable and resilient in every sense. It is about the decisions we make on where and how to live, how we run our businesses, and how we support our neighbours. Promoting social resilience means that we support vulnerable populations through times of change.
We also strongly believe that adaptation decisions should be based on the best available science and information. Again, it is very important to have the scientific data available, and this science has to be available to the people making adaptation decisions in a format that they can use.
This is why our government established the Canadian Centre for Climate Services, which was launched last year. This new and innovative service has consolidated data, tools and information onto an interactive website that supports Canadians in understanding and adapting to the impacts of climate change.
From globally accepted models, the Centre has derived an interactive map of climate conditions. Canadians can find out how the climate is changing in their city. For example, how much hotter will my summers be over the next 20 years? Will there be more rain, more or less snow?
If Canadians cannot find the information they are looking for, or need help to understand it, they can call or email to reach a climate expert.
As the federal government, we play a crucial role. We generate climate change information, guidance and tools to help Canadians adapt at all levels. We help build capacity in other orders of government, in communities and in the private sector to assess and respond to risks. We can also lead by example, by building resilience into federal assets, programs and services against the impacts of climate change.
While we continue to do great work at home, it is also important to recognize that Canada is not alone. Climate change is a global challenge that requires global solutions. This is why Canada has joined together with the Netherlands and other nations to show leadership on climate change and the environment through the work of the Global Commission on Adaptation.
The Global Commission on Adaptation was convened to elevate the visibility of climate change adaptation with a focus on identifying and encouraging solutions. Adapting to climate change is a challenge, but also an opportunity, an opportunity to create and expand into new markets with Canadian technologies and know-how, like growing food in cold climates.
There is so much to say about climate change and everything we are doing to tackle it.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of my colleague's speech she talked about preserving our water. In my riding, we have great programs, a very small incentive, to help farmers and agricultural workers preserve our streams. By putting a buffer alongside the streams, keeping cattle and other livestock out of the streams, the streams are new being unbelievably renewed. We have trees starting to grow in the buffer stream, shading and cooling the water, and now we have fish stocks returning to streams that were empty for years. However, it is very discouraging when farmers in my area and other areas of Canada are taking these initiatives on their own to improve our water quality and at the same time to have the Liberal government authorize the dumping of billions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. In November 2015, just shortly after the government was elected, it authorized the dumping of eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence. That is very discouraging to individual Canadians who are trying to do their part.
Here we have what the Liberals are calling an environmental plan and all it is is a tax plan. It sounds great, a price on pollution, it is a catchy phrase, it is a great sound bite, but it is not doing anything to preserve the environment.
Does my colleague not agree—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I have to allow for other questions.
The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.