Madam Speaker, the member opposite is from Langley—Aldergrove. That constituency is in British Columbia. British Columbia does not utilize the federal backstop system, so there is no federal carbon tax, as he calls it, in British Columbia. Every time he stands up in the House and says that he wants a carbon tax election for his constituents in British Columbia, in Langley—Aldergrove, what he is doing is continuing to try to impress upon his constituents that the federal carbon tax even applies in his constituency, but it does not.
Either he is unaware of that fact or he is intentionally trying to mislead his constituents; I do not know which one it is. I will not hazard to guess or even hazard to suggest that he is trying to intentionally mislead his constituents into thinking that a federal carbon tax is applied to any amount of fuel in British Columbia, because it simply is not and never has been.
We have had the conversation before and have repeated it enough times that every member of the House knows that the federal carbon tax does not apply in British Columbia. If he would like to talk about carbon pricing, there was just a provincial election in British Columbia. He can talk to the future premier of British Columbia about carbon pricing, because British Columbia is a leader on carbon pricing. It always has been.
In fact, it was a government in which many of the member's colleagues served that brought in this country's first-ever carbon pricing program, which is a provincial one. It has had its own system since 2008, more than 10 years before the Government of Canada implemented carbon pricing across the country. One of the reasons we did it across the country is that it was working. The emissions per capita were dropping in British Columbia. British Columbia's economy continued to grow as now Canada's emissions have gone down and Canada's economy continues to grow.
If the member opposite would like to talk about carbon pricing, then what we should also talk about is the cost of climate change itself. The Insurance Bureau of Canada reports that, for a second year in a row, Canada exceeded $7 billion in insured damage from severe weather and events linked to climate change. It is a scientific fact that climate change increases the severity and frequency of extreme weather events and many of those have affected my colleague's riding. Certainly his province, even just during the provincial election, received an extreme amount of precipitation in a very short period of time, constituting extreme weather.
Without significant additional actions to reduce emissions, these costs are projected to balloon to $35 billion in 2030 and to between $80 billion and $103 billion in 2055. The cost of inaction is far too great to bear. What we need to do is join countries like those in Europe; states like California, New York and New Jersey; and countries around the world that are determined to lower their emissions. The Conservatives are continually demonstrating not just their climate denial but also the fact that they are literally in the pockets of big oil and gas. It is as if their statements in the House were written by oil and gas lobbyists.
On the other hand, our government is taking serious and ambitious climate action. It includes using all of the tools in our tool box, which includes putting a price on pollution, and it also includes an industrial pricing system, widely recognized as the most cost-effective way of combatting climate change. Just today, industry called the provinces to work together to strengthen the industrial price on pollution.
Once again, if my colleague from British Columbia would like to talk about carbon pricing in Canada, that is great. If he would like it removed in British Columbia, he needs to talk to provincial politicians because there is no carbon tax in British Columbia from the federal government.