House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2019, with 49% of the vote.
The Environment April 27th, 2018
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that Quebec decided to do the right thing by putting a price on pollution. It made that decision on its own. It decided what to do with that revenue. It invested in electric vehicles and clean technology, and it helped to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
The party opposite does not have a plan to address climate change or stimulate the economy. We know how to do both and we are going to continue to do so.
The Environment April 27th, 2018
Madam Speaker, the opposition member is from Quebec. Maybe he could ask the Quebec government, which already has carbon pricing and has reduced emissions.
I was in Paris with the Prime Minister. There was a Clean Tech mission with companies from across Quebec that are developing clean solutions, creating jobs, and growing our economy.
We are going to fight climate change and grow our economy. I hope the party opposite will join us.
The Environment April 27th, 2018
Madam Speaker, I have one question for opposition members. What would they do to tackle climate change? The answer, nothing. They do not understand that we need to take serious action to tackle climate change, that we are all in this together, and that we are now in the clean growth century. There is a $30 trillion opportunity for clean solutions. That is why we are taking action to tackle climate change and grow our economy.
I am extremely proud that we have the fastest growing economy in the G7. We have the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years. We will do this while we tackle climate change.
The Environment April 27th, 2018
Madam Speaker, as the member opposite well knows, there are four provinces where there is a price on pollution already.
Let us take the case of British Columbia. It put a price on pollution, at the same time reducing emissions and putting the money back in the pockets of British Columbians. This was a choice that government made.
We know that climate change is real, that there is a real cost to Canadians, and that we need to take action. I wish the Conservatives would accept that and join us. Tackling climate change should not be a partisan issue.
The Environment April 27th, 2018
Madam Speaker, in 2015, Canadians made a choice. They chose a government that believed in climate change, that wanted to take action on climate change at the same time as growing our economy.
I will give the member some numbers. Does he know how much it costs right now in insurance claims? We are now at over $1 billion in insurance claims, claims by Canadians in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the high Arctic, and across the country. We are seeing extreme floods, droughts, and forest fires.
We know we need to take serious action on climate change. Putting a price on pollution makes sense.
The Environment April 26th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, we understand the environment and the economy go together. Unfortunately, we have one party on that side that does not want to protect the environment and another party that does not want to grow the economy. We understand we can do both.
When we made the decision to approve the Trans Mountain expansion, we made sure that we were protecting the environment, that it fit within our climate plans, that we were protecting our oceans. We also recognized the huge opportunity to create jobs in Alberta, British Columbia, and across the country.
The Environment April 26th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I can continue to try to explain basic economics. Putting a price on pollution is a Conservative concept. It is putting a price on what we do not want, pollution, so we get what we do want, innovation.
The Government of Saskatchewan can take the price on pollution and put it back into the pockets of farmers. Farmers are feeling the impacts of climate change. They are seeing droughts. They are seeing flooding. That is impacting on their crops. We all are in this together, and I wish the Conservative Party would join us too.
The Environment April 26th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, as I have made very clear, it is well within the right of Saskatchewan to make a tax cut, putting money back into the pockets of the people of Saskatchewan. Then we could reduce pollution and put money back in their pockets.
When I go to Saskatchewan, I see the amazing innovations in the agricultural sector. Farmers get it. They are seeing a drought that is impacting on their crops. However, they know how to use zero-till agriculture and climate-resilient crops, all these innovations that we are able to export to the world and create jobs right in Saskatchewan.
The Environment April 26th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, putting a price on pollution is well within the right of the federal government. However, we want to work with provinces and territories. We want to build a cleaner future. We want to make sure we grow a clean economy, and this is the opportunity.
I do not understand why the party opposite refuses to see this. We are in the clean growth century. Clean solutions will create good jobs. The innovations we do in Canada, in Saskatchewan, in British Columbia, in Ontario, are innovations that we can use across the country and across the world to build a more sustainable future, to grow our economy, to—
The Environment April 26th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much more clear I can be. It is up to provinces to determine what to do with the revenues.
The Province of Saskatchewan is well within its right to take the revenues and do a tax cut, to take the revenues and reduce its PST. It could make investments in innovation. In fact, it actually would help in Saskatchewan where it uses carbon capture and storage. It would incent people to use that technology. It would be cheaper. It would allow a made-in-Saskatchewan solution, like we are doing across the country
. We are going to grow a clean economy. We are—