Robert Sopuck

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, May 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Canada started showing leadership in sustainable development under the provincial government of Gary Filmon and the leadership of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, back in the late 1980s. We did it this way. Prime Minister Mulroney announced at the United Nations that Canada was going to be a leader in sustainable development and that we were going to create the International Institute for Sustainable Development, based in Winnipeg. I was very fortunate to be on the founding board of the International Institute for Sustainable Development. That institute is recognized around the world for its work.

The member talked about poverty reduction. As someone once said, “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future.” I think it was Yogi Berra. The government takes great pride in virtue signalling about its concern for our indigenous people. I am going to make a prediction right now that after the term of this government, and this is probably the last term, if one looks at the social and economic indicators in our indigenous communities from the first day the Liberals took office to their very last day in office, not a single indicator will have improved. They can take that prediction to the bank.

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, May 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to stand and discuss the concept of sustainable development under the Federal Sustainable Development Act..

What is often lost to people is that sustainable development is actually a development concept. The concept was popularized by the Brundtland commission report, Our Common Future, published in 1986. What spawned that report was the deep frustration about how environmental policy was being done in the world. The assumption was that economic development was always at the expense of the environment, which is clearly not true.

Also, what the Brundtland commission concluded is that poverty causes environmental degradation. When we have economies that are not firing on all cylinders, when we do not have innovation, and when we do not have free markets or free trade, the end result is environmental degradation.

In 1992, the Earth Summit happened in Rio. I was there as part of the Canadian delegation. The message from the Earth Summit, loud and clear, was that ending poverty was the best thing the world could do for the environment.

Again, as a true free market Conservative, it is very clear to me that free markets, free trade, and a thriving innovation sector create the conditions for wealth production and environmental protection. It is no secret that advanced industrial societies have the best environmental quality. Now the Liberals on the other side always talk about the environment and the economy going together, but in an advanced industrial society, the way they see it is backwards.

In an advanced industrial society, wealth creation is absolutely necessary for environmental conservation. It is wealthy societies that make the investments in environmental protection. We have many northern and remote communities, for example, that live in pristine environments. There is no industrial development. The land is much as it has been for eons and eons, yet those communities have terrible economies and very difficult social problems. The pristine environment around them does not generate the wealth they need to sustain their societies.

An economist named Kuznets came up with a concept of looking at per capita income in a country and environmental quality, for example. He did a unique analysis of sulphur dioxide. In the early 1900s, sulphur dioxide was being belched out of coal-fired power plants at a furious rate that caused the great smogs. People said they did not care about the environment. The whole point was to industrialize and to use those power plants to power an ever-growing society.

What happened in the early seventies, however, is that people said that enough was enough, because of acid rain and air pollution. They simply could not put up with that. Society changed dramatically. Technology was developed to put scrubbers in coal-fired power plants. Starting in the 1970s, sulphur dioxide emissions declined dramatically in the United States as it got richer and richer.

I am not one of those people who talks about balancing the environment and the economy. Quite frankly, there is no balance. A wealthy society creates a better environment. Society gets wealthier and the environment improves. The term “balance” implies it is a zero sum game and that economic development is at the expense of the environment. That is simply not the case. Actually, the greenest government ever in Canada was that of former Brian Mulroney in the eighties. In fact, he was awarded the prize of being the greenest prime minister in Canadian history.

One thing the Mulroney government did in Canada, an example of a rich society, was to implement pulp and paper effluent regulations requiring every pulp and paper plant in Canada to build a state-of-the-art wastewater treatment plant. I happen, in a previous life, to have run one of those wastewater treatment plants. Basically, what those plants did was to turn a toxic effluent into effluent that a person could drink.

Only rich societies do those kinds of things. We put scrubbers on smoke stacks, as I said a minute ago. In rich societies, we also set aside vast tracks of land as parks. I happen to live next to Riding Mountain National Park. It has great timber and soils, all the makings of a piece of land that could be developed for forestry or agriculture, yet we as a rich society have decided that Riding Mountain National Park shall remain in its natural state. That is a good thing, but again, wealthy societies are the ones that do that.

That is something the Liberal government has completely forgotten. The Liberals are doing their best to kill Canada's natural resource economy, which is 20% of our economy. The way they are killing the natural resource economy is with process after process. The just-announced purchase of the Kinder Morgan pipeline by the Liberal government is testament to the failure of its environmental policies.

We lost energy east. We lost the Petronas project. We lost northern gateway. In addition to the Kinder Morgan project, these would have produced thousands and thousands of jobs, especially in eastern Canada. I am talking about energy east right now and the absurd situation of Canada importing foreign oil for our eastern refineries when we produce enough raw material to supply those refineries ourselves. Only a Liberal would think that is a good thing. I hate to break it to the government, but process does not improve the environment. Actual work on the ground does.

The other thing that is implied by the Liberals and the NDP all the time is that somehow industry is either not doing a good job, or always wanting to skirt environmental regulations. Nothing could be further from the truth. All of our industrial projects these days are built with the highest environmental standards from day one. I saw it in person on the ground when I was doing environmental monitoring work in the oil sands. The care taken by energy companies and contractors with environmental protection was something to see. Everyone was trained in spill response. All of the technology was in place. Spill kits were everywhere. All of the proper environmental protocols were followed. In terms of the plants and the mines, all of the pollution control devices were world class.

As I said earlier, environmental results are critical. Under our government the environment improved significantly. Sulphur dioxide went down, nitrous oxide went down, and the amount of land devoted to parkland increased dramatically. Over 800,000 acres of extremely valuable land was secured under the national area conservation plan.

Contrast that with what is happening under the current government. I mentioned earlier the plight of the Atlantic salmon. I was in New Brunswick where people are devastated by the near collapse of the Atlantic salmon stocks. Their anger at DFO almost knows no bounds. They are being ignored by the government. The Atlantic salmon was an example of sustainable development, a sustainable fishery that sustained communities with 4,000 jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of income, and yet the government is ignoring the unanimous report of the fisheries committee. As a result, the Atlantic is in deep trouble.

Again, the Liberals think that process is results. Process does not produce results. Doing environmental conservation and environmental remediation and fish stock enhancement on the ground produces real environmental results. When I hear about the Federal Sustainable Development Act, I know it is about bureaucrats sending emails to themselves.

I would also note with regard to the Liberals' emphasis on process that in hearings before our environment committee on the impact assessment act, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said that Canada has a “toxic regulatory environment”. I guess that is why the Liberals are trying to buy their way out of it with the purchase of the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

The government is deliberately destroying Canada's natural resource industries and the communities, both indigenous and non-indigenous, that depend on them. This will have serious consequences for Canada's economy.

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, May 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague from Hull—Aylmer, in whose constituency I happen to live, that the great Winston Churchill said that however beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

What I hear from the government in terms of the Federal Sustainable Development Act is primarily of civil servants sending emails to each other. The lack of action on the ground dealing with real environmental issues is the tragedy of the current government. Let me give some specific examples.

I was just in the Maritimes, in particular, in Miramichi in New Brunswick. People and communities are absolutely devastated by the plight of the Atlantic salmon, a fish that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the recreational fishery of many communities. It supports 4,000 jobs. When I was on the fisheries committee, it produced a unanimous report with very detailed recommendations to rehabilitate those stocks. The current government has done absolutely nothing, and the people I have met with regarding the Atlantic salmon were scathing in their criticism of DFO and what it is not doing to conserve this very important fish.

Water quality in the Great Lakes continues to deteriorate. Under our previous government, we implemented a number of programs under the national conservation plan that the current government has cancelled.

Wetlands are being lost at a furious rate. The Liberals are doing nothing about that.

Regarding the Pacific salmon stocks, many stocks are in deep trouble. The chinook fishery has been closed on the west coast. I could go on and on.

Therefore, all the fine words by my colleague across the way mean nothing to people and communities that are affected by the environmental degradation the current government is completely ignoring. Why are the Liberals ignoring these problems?

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, May 29th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I noticed in the last answer that the minister did not even mention the economy as something that she was concerned about. Again, we are here to discuss the concept of sustainable development, which the act is a part of. It is about sustainable development.

My question is somewhat similar to the question from my friend from Cypress Hills—Grasslands. There is a major issue in Manitoba right now, and that is the building of the outlet out of Lake Manitoba to alleviate flooding that has so devastated communities around Lake Manitoba and across the entire province.

This project has been in the works for many years. It is critical. We are very lucky that this year is a low-runoff year, so we are going to get away, but why is her department putting endless delays in front of a vital project that is required to save farms, to save homes, to save communities, and to enhance the economy of Manitoba? If this is the minister's example of sustainable development, I do not want a part of it.

Sustainable development is a development concept. That is what it is. Gro Harlem Brundtland, in Our Common Future, noted that poverty causes environmental degradation. The Sustainable Development Act, and indeed the entire government, should do whatever it can to enhance development. To go back to my question, why the delay in approving the Lake Manitoba outlet?

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, May 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in a previous life, I used to manage a sustainable development fund and process for the Manitoba government. I was very much struck by the concept of sustainable development. However, I am deeply troubled by how the government misunderstands the concept of sustainable development. I will provide a short history lesson.

The term “sustainable development” was popularized by the Brundtland commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, the then prime minister of Norway. The report came out in 1987, “Our Common Future”. The people who wrote “Our Common Future” stated very clearly that poverty causes environmental degradation. Environmental degradation is caused by a lack of economic development.

However, the current government, through its various processes, such as the proposed impact assessment act and other processes, is processing natural resource projects to death and eliminating any hope for small rural communities to advance our economic future.

Why does the minister have a sustainable development bill that the words “wealth creation” are not even a part of, when a lack of wealth creation in Canada would be a major cause of long-term environmental degradation?

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for commenting about seniors. Being one myself, it is very close to my heart. The Liberal federal government wants to take us to where Ontario is: high energy prices, high costs, devastating impacts on low-income people. We read stories in Ontario of seniors who look at their hydro bill and say to themselves, “Do I heat or do I eat?” That is the stark issue they are facing.

I represent a fairly low-income constituency. My constituents are tough as nails. They live on low incomes and are self-sufficient and very proud, but they will suffer under the burden of a carbon tax at a time when costs are high everywhere else. When they get in their pickup trucks and drive, it is going to cost even more. The effects on seniors will be more devastating than on anyone else.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, under our government, the clean-tech sector thrived. If one looked at environmental indicators by number, almost all of them improved under our watch, because we wanted real results. In 2006, GHG emissions were 740 tonnes and in 2015 it was 722. That was a real result.

I noticed that the member opposite said it “could be” a benefit, so obviously for many citizens it will simply not be a benefit, especially those who live in rural areas. I have also been provided with anecdotal evidence—and I do not really like anecdotes, but numbers—that the number of people from B.C. buying gas in the United States is growing by leaps and bounds.

For the member to take credit for Amazon moving to Vancouver because of a carbon tax is absolutely ridiculous.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

It was with great hilarity that I listened to my Manitoba colleague's speech. One thing that I noticed was that not a single number came out of his mouth. It was all straight opinion.

Numbers are important. If there is no talk about numbers, there is no talk about environmental policy. If there are no numbers, there are no facts. Numbers are, in essence, science. The government professes to support science, but let us notice how it obfuscates, skates around issues, and presents no proof of what it says. It simply does not care about science.

I would like to quote a sage from 2,000 years ago, Hippocrates of Kos, who said, “There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.” All I heard from the member opposite was nothing but opinions.

Let us look at the numbers regarding the carbon tax, which is the signature policy of the government in terms of the cost to the economy. One would think that the government would use metrics, but knowing the government's proclivity for obfuscation, there are two possibilities: either the government knows the real number in terms of the cost to the economy but will not tell, or it is blindly charging ahead with no idea of the effect on the environment or the economy.

Interestingly, my colleague from Manitoba talked about B.C. and all that kind of stuff. I am going to segue into a letter from a citizen from Seattle. He was talking about the activists in B.C. He said, “Thanks to [those activists] who seem to have once again to have blocked an oil pipeline to the coast. Those of us living south of the border will continue to enjoy importing your oil at substantial discounts while exporting our oil from Gulf ports at world market prices. Your gift to us, around $100 million per day Canadian, is greatly appreciated. We marvel at your generosity while doubting your sanity. All of this will have zero impact on the global climate, of course.”

Again, the effects of what the government is doing in terms of blocking Canada's oil exports and in terms of its climate pricing are truly daunting.

A few weeks ago, I challenged the environment minister in committee to provide a number in terms of how much reduction there would be in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the carbon tax. I demanded answers. She was just going around and around. Throughout her answer, I asked, “What is the number? What is the number?” Naturally, she gave us nothing. In fact, the exchange was so hilarious that it was featured on This Hour has 22 Minutes. The whole segment was on how the government provides no answers to any specific questions.

Let us come up with a few answers for the effect on the economy of a $50-a-tonne carbon tax, which is what the government wants. A $50-a-tonne carbon tax will increase fuel prices by 11.6¢ per litre. Canadians can go to the natural resources website and see that Canada consumes about 105 billion litres per year of domestic fuel, so when we do the math, we see that Canadians will pay about an extra $12 billion per year for domestic fuel. That means the average family, just for that alone, will pay between $1,000 and $2,000 per year extra.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has a very interesting article, headed “PBO says carbon tax will knock $10 billion off GDP by 2022”.

It said:

The government's carbon pricing plan will cause the GDP to drop, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's (PBO) latest report, costing Canadians $10 billion they would otherwise have gained by 2022.

The article went on to say:

The report warns that the levy will “generate a headwind” for the economy as the price on carbon is boosted from $10 per tonne of CO2 in 2018 to $50 per tonne in 2022.

It adds, “...in economic terms, headwinds aren't a good thing.”

In terms of the effect on rural and northern communities and poor people, the member for Nunavut—and I spent a fair bit of time in Nunavut myself in a previous life—spoke at length. He asked the parliamentary secretary about some kind of price relief for the Nunavummiut. Anyone who has been to any community in Nunavut—indeed, in much of the Northwest Territories as well—will know diesel fuel powers those communities. Also, snowmobiles are very expensive and use a lot of fuel. They are vital for the hunting, trapping, and fishing that people in those regions engage in. The answer the parliamentary secretary gave was basically that they would look at it and think of something.

My own riding of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa is the size of Nova Scotia. It is a very dispersed riding, with lots of small and remote communities and lots of wide open spaces. There is no public transportation, so people have to drive, regardless of their income. My constituency is one of the lower-income constituencies in Canada. Not only are our people forced to use their vehicles—keep in mind we love our pickup trucks—but so are farmers. The member opposite went on about agriculture. We agree how terrific our farmers are, as the member for Kitchener—Conestoga pointed out so eloquently. Community farmers are price-takers and not price-makers. They will not be able to recover those carbon tax costs. I go back to the point that rural people have no option but to drive.

Going back to the cost of carbon tax, there was a report done by Chris Ragan, the chair of Canada's Ecofiscal Commission. He pointed out that Canada currently emits 700 million tonnes of emissions annually. A price of $50 per tonne placed on these emissions comes to $35 billion, and in an interview he said that this is not the most efficient model for growing the economy. He went on to say, “The best way, if you really care about economic growth, is you use the revenue from a carbon price to reduce the most growth retarding tax we have, which is a corporate income tax.”

Thirty-five billion dollars per year is the upper estimate, so it would be between $10 billion and $30 billion per year.

Again, a report from the Conference Board of Canada states that carbon pricing alone can't meet Canada's GHG reduction targets.

The government's record on the environment is absolutely appalling. It is long on rhetoric but woefully short of results. It is appalling hypocrisy. Montreal and Quebec were allowed to discharge millions of litres of sewage. What did we hear from the other side? We heard crickets. Victoria is currently dumping raw sewage. The wetlands fund and the recreational fisheries conservation partnership program were cancelled.

We ask ourselves what the outcome of the carbon tax will be. It should be a truism in environmental policy that when one does an environmental project, there is an environmental outcome. If a scrubber is put on a smokestack, SO₂ is reduced. What is the outcome of the carbon tax?

When Conservatives do environmental policy, we insist on real and measurable results for environmental programs and policies. For example, when Brian Mulroney was prime minister, he negotiated the acid rain treaty. Those were very tough, tense negotiations with the Americans, but there was a clear and definite result for our environment. Our government would put in place new parks, remediate contaminated sites, restore wetland funds, and on and on, producing real results.

Given the flaws in the government's carbon tax plan and the cascading of the GST on top of the carbon tax, which will result in significant cost to Canadian families and the economy, I am very pleased to support the motion by my colleague.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I think it was, the member for Nunavut asked a very pointed question about the extraordinary negative effect of the carbon tax on Nunavut and Arctic communities. I happen to represent a very large rural riding the size of Nova Scotia, where there is no public transit, communities are dispersed, and people are dispersed. My constituency is actually one of the lowest-income constituencies in the country. The effect of the carbon tax, and with the GST tacked on top of the tax, will be abnormally large for northern and rural communities.

I noticed in my colleague's speech that she did not mention those communities once. They are considered an afterthought by the government. Why is the government being so callous toward rural and northern communities, and also to people on low incomes who often, especially as we can see in Ontario with its ridiculous energy policies, have a choice every day to heat or eat?

[Winnipeg Jets, April 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, spring may have sprung in Manitoba, but the Whiteout is still going strong. After our Winnipeg Jets tamed the Wild in round one of the Stanley Cup playoffs, we are onto round two.

I can guarantee that the Presidents' Trophy-winning Nashville Predators are terrified of the firepower our Winnipeg Jets are about to rain down upon them. In round two, the Predators will become the prey. After the painful departure of the original Jets in 1996, the return of our beloved Jets has energized our province. All of Manitoba is buzzing in support of our team.

After the anticipated early exit of the Toronto Maple Leafs, the Jets become the only Canadian team in the hunt. I encourage all Canadians to jump on the bandwagon of Canada's team, and join the Whiteout as our Jets fight to win Lord Stanley's cup.

Go, Jets, go.