Mr. Speaker, I find it astounding to sit here at this hour of the evening and listen to so many falsehoods peddled by the hon. member. I will give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she believes them to be true. However, I would like to correct the record.
Before I get into the specifics of her remarks, I would like to just state, and it is shameful that I even have to start here, that climate change is real, that it is caused primarily by human activities, and that we have an obligation and an opportunity to do something about it. We know, based on the advice of world-leading experts in climate science and climate policy, that the most effective thing we can do to transition to a low-carbon economy is to put a price on pollution.
However, we also know that affordability for families in Canada is paramount. That is why we are returning the revenues to families directly, and eight out of 10 families in the hon. member's province are going to have more money at the end of the year. She does not have to take my word for it. I would invite her to read the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. If she cannot find a copy, I will provide one to her, gladly.
It confirms not only what we have been saying, that eight out of 10 families will be left better off at the end of the year, but that the only families that will be out of pocket will be the wealthiest 20% of families in any province where the federal backstop applies.
This is important. We have made great efforts to ensure that affordability remains paramount. This is a theme of our government, with the Canada child benefit putting more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families, with the middle-class tax cut that raised taxes on the wealthiest 1%, with the guaranteed income supplement that helps the lowest-income single seniors make life more affordable. I note in particular that the Conservative caucus voted against each of these measures.
However, when we are dealing with the economic impact of our plan to put a price on pollution, it is important that we examine the results other jurisdictions have experienced. Long story short, it does not have a drag effect on the economy. If anything, it creates opportunities in the green economy.
The Province of Saskatchewan has actually been found to be burying a report that confirms that the economic impact would be minimal, if it could be discerned at all.
Our plan to put a price on pollution is based on the advice of folks like Prof. William Nordhaus, who actually won the Nobel Prize last year for developing the kind of approach we are now implementing. Conservatives such as Preston Manning support our approach. Mark Cameron, Stephen Harper's former director of policy, supports this approach. Even Doug Ford's chief budget adviser has testified before the Senate in this Parliament saying that the single most effective thing we could do to transition to a low-carbon economy is to put a price on pollution.
The hon. member said that the cost would have to rise to $200 a tonne. This figure is seemingly made up; it is false. We have been clear and transparent with our plan to put a price on pollution, starting at $20 a tonne, which will rise to $50 by 2022. To say that we are going further than that is not based on fact. I do not know where the number comes from; she seems to be making it up.
The hon. member has indicated that average Canadians will be impacted the most. That is simply false. I pointed her earlier to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. I have seen her now blame Liberal policy for the floods that exist in the province of Ontario, when she will not acknowledge the science behind it, which actually demonstrates that human activity is causing climate change.
I sincerely hope, for the sake of honesty in this debate, that the hon. member, during her one-minute rebuttal, will stand up and acknowledge that climate change is real, that it is driven primarily by human activities and that we have an obligation as legislators to do something about it. I would ask that she not go down the path of Doug Ford, who makes cuts left and right. He has cut a budget for planting 50 million trees, cut conservation projects, dismantled the system that was in place that was creating good jobs and boosting the green economy in that province, and dismantled the flood protections that were in place. Then he puts his hands up in the air and says that it seems there must be something happening with these floods.
The something that is happening is climate change. It is driven by people. I invite the hon. member to stand up and acknowledge that, rather than standing here in solitude, being the only member who voted against Canada's adherence to the Paris Agreement in this chamber.
