Debates of Sept. 28th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

It is wonderful to rise today. I am quite interested to speak to today's Conservative opposition day motion, brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition. It speaks to many of the issues that we are dealing with in society and how best to tackle them in today's economy, in today's Canada and the world context that we are situated in.

I am pleased to take part in today's debate to speak about the economic situation in Canada and the rest of the world, and some of the measures we, as a government, are taking to make life more affordable from coast to coast to coast in this beautiful country.

We know that interest rates are high, and that is weighing heavily on Canadians. We know rates have become what I would call normalized after the 2008-09 financial crisis, and we are seeing this both here in Canada and in the United States. Liquidity measures have been reversed, there is quantitative easing and so forth. We are seeing a return to normalized rates. However, we know that this is, in part, being driven by global inflation and the battle against it, as well as the normalization of the economy post-COVID.

Global inflation has driven up the cost of necessities, and people are worried about their family finances. Canadian consumer prices rose by 4% last month. That is why our government is focused on building an economy with strong and consistent growth, as well as abundant, well-paying middle-class jobs. We are committed to helping Canadians get through this difficult time.

We are seeing some positive results from all our hard work. The OECD projects that Canada will have the strongest economic growth in the G7 next year. DBRS Morningstar also recently confirmed our AAA credit rating earlier this month. I would note that I actually worked at DBRS for a number of years before going into the bond markets here in Canada. I would like to say hello to many of my colleagues who are still at that entity.

There are 980,000 more Canadians employed now than before the pandemic. Most notably, the labour force participation rate for Canadians in their prime working years reached a new record of 85.7% in June.

Studies have been published about our early learning and child care system.

Studies show that every dollar invested in early childhood education generates between $1.50 and $2.80 in economic activity for the broader economy. Affordable early learning and child care is important to our economy and to our country. It is one of the most important ways we are helping middle-class families across Canada with real, meaningful support every single month. All provinces and territories have signed agreements with the federal government, reducing the average cost by over 50%, and we are on track to reach the $10-a-day child care that we committed to by 2026. That is something I think all members of this House should proud of and applaud.

The government will provide an additional $625 million to support provinces and territories in investing in infrastructure that would make child care more accessible and would target underserved communities.

I would like to say that, with my almost two-year-old in day care these days, we have seen an over 50% reduction in our day care fees, saving us approximately $800 a month in after-tax money. Our family is blessed in many ways. If we put that to before-tax money, it is saving our family over $1,000 a month, or $12,000 a year.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say hello to the hon. member from Calgary who just shouted something out. He is a gentleman and an avid golfer. I wish him the best.

Making sure Canadians have access to affordable child care is important, but we also know that far too many Canadians are struggling with the increasing cost of essentials, such as housing and groceries.

Such initiatives as putting a price on carbon, an effective and affordable way to combat climate change, has been putting more money back in the pockets of Canadians. Eight out of 10 households get more money back than they pay, with low- and middle-income households benefiting the most.

We know that more needs to be done to address affordability. That is why we began this fall parliamentary session by introducing Bill C-56.

I just came from subbing in on the finance committee with CMHC officials, and it was great to talk about the removal of the goods and services tax on new purpose-built rental housing to encourage the construction of more rental homes, including apartment buildings, student housing and senior residences, across Canada.

I come from an area of the country where builders build houses and the associations are located. Since 2015, I will put on record, I have argued that we remove the GST on purpose-built rental housing in combination with the provinces. The GST combined with the HST would allow, encourage and incentivize more purpose-built rental housing to be built across the country and here in Ontario even more so. All the associations are applauding it. I encourage this measure and that Bill C-56 be passed as quickly as possible by all sides of the House.

For a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000, the enhanced GST rental rebate could deliver $25,000 in tax relief.

This is another tool to help create the necessary conditions to build the types of housing that we need, that Canadians need and that families want to live in. This measure would also remove the restriction in the existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies, such as universities, colleges, hospitals, charities and qualifying non-profit organizations that build or purchase purpose-built rental housing, are permitted to claim the 100% enhanced GST rental rebate. The government is also calling on the provinces that currently apply provincial sales taxes or the provincial portion of the HST on rental housing to join us by matching our rebate for new rental housing.

In fact, the finance minister of Ontario, an old colleague of mine whom I worked with for a number of years in Toronto at DBRS, came out that same day and said that the Province of Ontario would be joining the federal government in removing the tax on purpose-built rental housing, the HST portion on the federal side. We encourage all provinces and territories to join in, follow the lead of some of the provinces and territories and eliminate the provincial component.

We are also requesting that local governments put an end to exclusionary zoning and encourage building apartments near public transit in order to have their housing accelerator fund applications approved. Earlier this month, the government announced that London, Ontario, will be the first city to benefit from this fund, and it will certainly not be the last. It represents one of the ways we are encouraging initiatives aimed at increasing housing supply. It also supports the development of complete, low-carbon, climate-resilient communities that are affordable, inclusive, equitable and diverse.

Every community across Canada needs to build more homes faster, so we can reduce the cost of housing for everyone. We know that there are more cranes currently in the city of Toronto than in any other city in North America. We could combine cities in North America, and we would not reach the same number of cranes. I want to salute all the builders and workers out there from the carpenters union, IBEW, the pipefitters, everyone working on the condos and high-rises in downtown Toronto, in the GTA, across Ontario and Canada who get up every morning and build the housing we need. We need to applaud them. We are going to give them more work, not just today but in the years to come.

Without more homes in our communities, it is difficult for businesses to attract the workers they need to grow and succeed. When people spend more of their income on housing, it means less money is being spent in our communities for necessities such as groceries. We are taking immediate steps to enhance competition in the Canadian economy, with a focus on the grocery sector, to help stabilize costs for middle-class Canadians.

Through Bill C‑56, the government is introducing the first series of legislative changes to the Competition Act to give more power to the Competition Bureau to investigate when industries are behaving unfairly, for example where price fixing or price gouging is occurring, and take enforcement action; remove the efficiencies defence, to end anti-competitive mergers that raise prices and limit choices for Canadian consumers; and empower the Competition Bureau to block collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, particularly in situations where large grocers prevent smaller competitors from establishing operations nearby.

By making these changes, we will empower the Competition Bureau to investigate price gouging and price-fixing. I have been calling for this for a very long time. More competition and less consolidation, more innovation and lower prices mean more choice for consumers across Canada.

In conclusion, our government understands that many Canadians still need to get through these difficult times. Canadians are being pressured, and we understand that. The focus of our government is investing in Canadians, restoring middle-class prosperity and building a country where everyone has a real chance to succeed. We will continue to do that day after day.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I note that my hon. colleague across the way spent much of his speech talking about measures that the government is introducing to address other government measures that have raised the cost of living for so many Canadians. I applaud the efforts to outline the mitigation efforts, but today is about a Conservative motion to eliminate the carbon tax, which is one of the drivers of the increased costs that Canadians are suffering from.

We have heard much about greenhouse gas targets. Let us go to the environment for a second. The current government has never met one greenhouse gas target it has set.

We have also heard a lot about hurricanes and fires and the challenges that Canadians are facing from our environment. My question for my hon. colleague is twofold: As a buried premise to that issue, what would the carbon tax have to be to stop hurricanes and wildfires? If the government had met its greenhouse gas emissions targets, would that have stopped those hurricanes and those fires that Canadians are suffering from?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say is that we have a plan to fight climate change, and I hope to see and would like to see a plan from the official opposition to do the same. The greatest threat we have today globally, existentially, is climate change. We need to fight it. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions here in Canada. We need to help the world do that in unison, and we are.

We see today's announcement of a $7-billion investment in Quebec with Northvolt. We are seeing announcements on technologies. If one walked down Sparks Street yesterday and spoke to representatives from Rio Tinto, Teck Resources or a number of companies, including those putting electric buses on the road, one would see that we are collaborating with all levels of government and with private industry, which I love, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, I encourage the official opposition—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, this morning, we saw the leader of the official opposition completely exploit the cost of living crisis and therefore exploit the suffering of poor people who cannot afford to house, clothe or feed themselves, just to push big oil's agenda. In 2022, the oil companies made $200 billion in profits, which represents $5,000 per Canadian, young and old.

I do not know what my colleague thinks, but if we want to lower the cost of living, if we want to help people out, should we not start by ending the subsidies for the greedy oil and gas sector?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. The housing crisis is one of the most important issues for this government. We have introduced many measures to help Canadians not only buy, but build houses.

We continue to work with all levels of government through the housing accelerator fund and increasing the Canada mortgage bond from $40 billion to $60 billion, which is something that is a little esoteric. Finance guys, like me, love to see that. There is about $200 billion in CMBs out there trading, which will encourage 30,000 new rental apartments to be built every year across this country.

It is very important for us to have an overall picture of the real estate market in Canada.

We are making sure we are doing everything to help Canadians purchase a home—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, this debate today has been a bit absurd. The Conservatives have once again brought up this debate because, frankly, they are fundraising off it. They need to make some mailers, and they all want their clips on this particular issue. It is not in any way meaningfully looking at ways that we can deal with the climate crisis or the cost of living crisis. I am not even going to deal with the motion; I am going to deal with some of the member's speech.

One thing the member had spoken about is how the carbon tax works and how it helps people because of the rebates. When Rachel Notley, who brought in the very first carbon tax in the country, did this in Alberta, she did it in a way that actually helped Alberta respond to the climate crisis, and it was much stronger in terms of making sure. In fact, $1.5 billion went to the Calgary green line, which is really important for the city of Calgary. One point five billion dollars went to—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am going to stop the hon. member. Could we have some silence so the member can listen to the question being asked?

The member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that a member for Calgary is complaining and whining about the fact that $1.5 billion was spent on the Calgary Green Line. These are interesting times.

Would the government look at Rachel Notley's carbon tax and perhaps manage the federal carbon tax in a way that would—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge has 15 seconds.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, we brought in a carbon tax, a price on carbon, for Canadian provinces. If there was one in place, it does not apply. Therefore, for the province of Quebec, the price on carbon does not apply to that province, from my understanding, and each province can determine its own usage of that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, climate change is real and is having a major impact across Canada and around the world. We have to face that fact.

We have two options. We can either impose taxes, like this government is doing, or we can take real action with concrete, effective measures. On September 8, in Quebec City, the Leader of the Opposition, member for Carleton and leader of the Conservatives gave an important speech highlighting what our future government would do if we are fortunate enough to have Canadian voters put their faith in us. That is what we all hope for the good of Canada.

The Conservative leader talked about the very real impact of climate change. That is why we believe that we need tangible measures to tackle this reality, which affects Canada and the entire planet.

First, we need tax incentives to reduce pollution using high-tech tools. The Liberals think they need to impose a tax, but we think we need to create tax incentives for the high-tech sector to tackle climate change. We need to give the green light to green technologies and make it easier for Canadians to access green energy sources like hydroelectricity, solar energy, wind energy and any new technologies that we develop. We need to give the green light to green energy and stop conducting studies all the time and creating red tape. We need to take action to green-light green energy.

We also need to promote and develop the know-how and natural resources that we have in Canada so we can export them around the world, but also make use of them here at home. In Canada, we have everything we need to make things like electric cars. I am thinking about lithium, among other things. It is on us to develop it as fast as possible in order to give Canadians and the entire planet access to the Canadian natural resources they need and the Canadian expertise that sets us apart around the world in a positive way.

We, the Conservatives, are proposing concrete action that will deliver real results in the fight against climate change. What is the Liberal government's approach? After eight years of the Liberal government, Canada has never met its targets. The Liberals will say that that is not true, that Canada has met them. Yes, but that was during the pandemic. I am not sure that shutting down the economy is the right thing to do, quite the opposite, in fact.

A study examined 63 countries to see how effectively they are fighting climate change. The study was not done by the Conservatives, but rather by the UN. It found that, after eight years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries. Why is that? It is because this government is always quick to talk, to moralize and to lecture everyone, to blame everyone else on the planet and, above all, to tax people more. That is the problem we have.

This government's greedy desire to take even more money out of people's pockets is its trademark. What is more, its ally in this matter, the Bloc Québécois, wants the government to radically increase the amount of money it takes out of taxpayers' pockets by radically raising the carbon tax. It is not me saying that. It is the Bloc. That is not the right thing to do.

Let us set the record straight. Canada currently has two carbon taxes. The first is the Liberal carbon tax, which applies from coast to coast to coast. Here are the facts: As we have always said, Quebec and all the other provinces have full jurisdiction in this area. That is why Quebec has had a carbon exchange for over a decade.

For federal Conservatives, it is not about deeming that good or bad. We respect Quebec's desire to have a carbon exchange, and that is fine. From time to time, the exchange is the subject of some debate in Quebec. People have been talking about it over the past few days. That is okay; that is what debate is.

I would like to remind the House of a statement made by a former member of Quebec's National Assembly, a former Quebec government minister and former PQ member and minister. No, I am not talking about the current Bloc Québécois leader, who is and always will be the most polluting environment minister in Quebec's history because he gave the green light to the most polluting project in Quebec's history. I am talking about Sylvain Gaudreault, the former member for Jonquière and former minister, who said that the carbon exchange was based on paying for the right to pollute. He said, “It's a major flight of capital—we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars.” I will not go into the details, but of course Quebec's carbon exchange is up for debate.

What people are forgetting is that the federal Liberal government gave itself the power to set the price of carbon on Quebec's carbon exchange, effective next year. We never heard the Bloc Québécois complain that it made no sense for Ottawa to barge into an area of provincial jurisdiction by setting the price of carbon. Should we be surprised? Not really, since these people support the carbon tax from coast to coast to coast.

That brings me to the other point. Aside from the rain, everything we own has been transported. The last I heard, Quebec is not 100% self-sufficient. Sometimes Quebeckers buy things produced outside Quebec, things produced in Canada. Invariably, these goods are transported, and transportation generally involves combustion engines. In that case, the Liberal carbon tax applies. That means the first Liberal carbon tax has a direct impact on Quebeckers.

Let me turn to the second Liberal carbon tax. I find it comical that they have given it a big honking title rather than calling it a carbon tax. Here are the facts. Even though they refer to it as the “clean fuel regulations”, the reality remains. When the government imposes a price after a good is purchased, they can call it whatever they want, but we call it a tax. That tax, which is 17¢, will apply in Quebec. This is not coming from us; it is coming from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. After conducting an in-depth study, as he always does, he concluded that it would cost an extra 17¢. Add tax on top of that, and oil will cost 20¢ more per litre used.

That means that there are two carbon taxes that were created by the Liberal government and supported by the Bloc Québécois. We offered the Bloc an opportunity to distance itself from all this. On June 5, we tabled a motion to that effect, condemning both taxes and specifically the “clean fuel regulations”, yet the Bloc Québécois voted against it. That just makes no sense.

What especially does not make sense is the greedy attitude of the Bloc Québécois, who want to take even more money out of taxpayers' pockets. The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert told the House, in that eloquent way that he has, that we need to drastically increase taxes. I respect everyone's point of view, but that is not an opinion that we share. What an arrogant, irresponsible and completely pretentious attitude toward people who are struggling to get by these days. No big deal, we just need to drastically increase taxes: That is the Bloc Québécois's policy, and it is enthusiastically supported by the Liberals, unless a Liberal plans to rise and say that they disagree. Do they agree with that? Do they agree with the idea of drastically increasing this tax?

They are very quiet. Later, they will have the opportunity to say that this does not make sense, as will the other members of the Bloc Québécois. One might think that the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert just got carried away, but such is not the case. He said what he thinks, which is a very good thing. The problem is that this is the worst thing we could do with inflation being the way it is.

As we speak, people in Quebec City are lining up in front of a food bank to be able to eat. That is unacceptable. Quebeckers, like all Canadians, have seen housing prices double in the past eight years. Inflation is the highest it has ever been in the last 50 years.

What do the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals want to do? They want to radically increase the Liberal carbon tax. That is totally unacceptable, disrespectful and despicable, at a time when all Canadians and all Quebeckers are facing very serious problems because of inflation.

We need to join forces. Above all, we must not overtax people. We need to give them some breathing room. Taxing people is not an effective way to fight climate change.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that I am thrilled to hear the member say, at the opening of his speech, that climate change is real. I genuinely mean that.

What I want to understand is, given that in the 2021 Conservative convention, 54% of the delegates decided that they did not want to make reference to the fact that climate change is real and that we need to do something about it, how does he square his opinion on that with Conservatives?

To that end, during a convention like that, does he go up to people and say that, actually, they are wrong, that climate change is real, and try to convince them?

This is a genuine question. I respect the member.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, during the famous and historic Quebec speech, the hon. leader of the Conservative Party of Canada said the following clearly:

We have to face up to the real impact of climate change. We have to face up to this with a realistic and constructive attitude, not with taxation.

This is where we stand. This is where Canadians stand. They need action. They are sick and tired of hearing the narrative of the Liberals when we all know they are all talk and no results, especially when it comes to addressing climate change.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my short political career, I have never heard so much deceit. Earlier, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent said that it was normal for the Conservatives to criticize Quebec's carbon exchange.

However, last week, his colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis was waving a paper around. She may not realize it, but she was actually referring to carbon pricing in Quebec. Conservative MPs were criticizing a Quebec policy in the House of Commons, a policy put in place when she was a minister in the Liberal government. That is unbelievable.

Not only that, but big oil pocketed $200 billion in 2022. That is $5,000 per Canadian. As for what the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent said, he deserves a round of applause. He thinks there is a connection to be made between this and the price of turkey, turnips, and food in general. The only turkey I see here today is the MP for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. We must try to stick to comments about the content, not the person, please. I would ask the hon. member to be careful.

The hon. member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I see that the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the most polluting environment minister in Quebec's history, is starting to rub off on his colleagues. It is very disappointing, but what can we do? The example comes from the top. That is how they acted.

I just want to remind the member that in Quebec, which he loves so much, just as I do—because it is not true that they love Quebec more than we do—18 billion litres of fuel was consumed last year. That is Quebec's reality. Of that volume consumed, 47% came from the United States.

As long as we need so-called fossil fuels, I will always fight for Canada. I have nothing against Texas or Louisiana, but, the last time I checked, neither Texas nor Louisiana contributed to equalization, which provides $13 billion to Quebec.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent likes facts. I will share some with him.

Canada's population is 60th in the world in number of residents, but we rank 11th in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. We go from 60th to 11th place. If we think of it in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per capita, we are the second largest polluters in the world. Only residents of Saudi Arabia pollute more than Canadians on a per capita basis. Even the Americans pollute less than we do per capita.

What solution does the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent have to offer other than to produce more oil, more fossil fuels and hope that some high-tech magic wand will work?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, who we hope will be the next prime minister of Canada, gave a speech in Quebec City on September 8. He stated very clearly that we plan to move forward with concrete action, and that certainly will not involve taxing and lecturing, which is what the Liberal Party has been doing for the past eight years.

We want to offer tax incentives for investments in cutting-edge technology to fight climate change. We want to give green energy the green light. Enough with spending years and years studying whether there will be an impact here or there. We must act immediately.

Now more than ever, the world needs Canada's know-how, energy and natural resources. We need to export them. We also need to be self-sufficient in this regard.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hope you will indulge me just for a moment before I start my debate to give a special thanks to my father. It has nothing to do with his time in politics or as the environment minister provincially. It is for once again bailing out his son this morning as he has probably done so many times throughout his life.

I arrived in Ottawa yesterday, read the contents of today's motion, went to get my notes and realized I had forgotten everything in Kingston. My father drove halfway to Ottawa to rendezvous to deliver those notes so I could be properly prepared for today. As an avid watcher of CPAC, I am sure he is tuned in right now. I want to express my thanks to him for once again bailing out his son.

I know there is a lot of information that has been talked about today in terms of the effects of pricing pollution and what this government has been able to accomplish. I know the member for Regina—Lewvan, who is only one of many, has spoken several times about not meeting targets and the ineffectiveness of policies that this government has brought on board.

I want to bring to the attention of the House the growth of these policies and put into context how effective these policies have been. The growth of the renewable energy and Canada's progress on phasing out coal-fired electricity has seen emissions from the electricity sector decrease by 64 megatonnes between 2005 and 2021. This progress puts Canada in an excellent position to meet those 2035 targets that we have set to get to a net-zero electricity grid by that point.

The data also shows a 16% decrease in residential emissions, with less home heating by oil being used. Many Canadians are taking the steps to change their homes' energy efficiency by making the switch to heat pumps, solar and cleaner options. I think it is very important, while I say this, to also point out that there is one sector that has continued and grown in terms of emissions, and that is the oil and gas sector.

Despite the oil and gas sector continuing to grow in terms of emissions, the net emissions throughout our country have continued to decrease. In fact, the oil and gas sector is the only industry that has actually continued to increase in terms of emissions over the last few years.

I think it is very telling, and Canadians are rightfully concerned about this, that I have presented three or four petitions since the House resumed last week specifically calling on the government for strong and bold emissions caps when it comes to this sector particularly. I think it is the right thing to do. I never comment on it when I am presenting the petition because the rules do not permit me to, but I certainly think that it is the right thing to do, to put on bold caps.

We are in a transition. Whether Conservatives like it or not, the world is moving away from fossil fuels. One in every 10 cars in this country that is being sold is an electric vehicle. Regardless of the fact that Conservatives do not want to believe it, it is absolutely true. As a matter of fact, in 2021, the average new light-duty vehicle had 25% to 35% lower greenhouse gas emissions than a similar new vehicle in 2011. The progress we are making is working.

The member for Regina—Lewvan got up and said we have not met our targets. There are a lot of Conservatives who have said we have not met our targets. I would rather have very bold, ambitious targets that we do not quite achieve, than loose statements like, “We are going to fix the environment with technology.” What does that even mean? That is the Conservatives' entire plan. They say they are going to fix the environment and climate change, which they suddenly believe in, with technology, and then nothing else after that.