Sean Fraser

[The Environment, May 17th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind this House that it is Endangered Species Day and that our world is facing a global crisis when it comes to the protection of our wildlife. Since the 1970s, we have seen 60% of our wildlife disappear, including iconic species in Canada.

With respect to the southern mountain caribou, we have seen local population units that have been around for thousands of years wiped off the face of the planet forever. We have achieved a groundbreaking conservation agreement with the Province of British Columbia and the Saulteaux and West Moberly First Nations. We intend to keep the commitments that we made, but we want to work with communities to ensure that we do so in a way that respects their way of life and local economies. However, we simply cannot let this iconic species disappear from our great country.

[The Environment, May 17th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is, climate change is real, the consequences are serious and we are facing an emergency today. We do not need to look to the end of the century to understand that people are feeling the consequences in our communities. We can look at the storm surges on the east coast, floods in New Brunswick, heatwaves in Quebec and Ontario, forest fires in the west and glacial melt in the north. We are feeling the impact today, and it is costing us dearly.

We have put forward a plan with more than 50 concrete measures that is going to bring our emissions down, strengthen communities, make life more affordable and do right for the next generation.

With respect to the NDP's motion, there were fatal flaws in it, because those members did not do their homework and understand that the consequences would shut off electricity to—

[Carbon Pricing, May 17th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have to point out that the hon. member seems confused. The province of British Columbia simply does not have the federal system apply, and in fact, the B.C. government's plan to price pollution has added one cent to the cost of gas in that province.

In respect to provinces where our plan applies, I direct the hon. member to read the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report that confirms that eight out of 10 families will have more money in their pockets at the end of the year as a result of our plan that will also reduce emissions.

If he is finally concerned about affordability, I would invite his constituents to write him and ask why he opposed the increase to the Canada child benefit, why he opposed the tax cut for middle-class families and why he opposed support for low-income seniors.

[The Environment, May 17th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the hon. member, and in fact the entire NDP, have good intentions when it comes to climate change, but the question just put on the floor of the House of Commons demonstrates that they do not bring the thoughtfulness required to develop policy that is going to meaningfully reduce our emissions.

For example, he has just cited the fact that big emitters are somehow exempt from our plan. Let me be unequivocal on this point: Big emitters are going to pay a price on pollution, and that is why families will be better off and eight out of 10 will have more money in their pockets at the end of the day.

With respect to the motion that he has just referred to, they have called for the immediate end to all fossil fuel subsidies. Had they consulted with indigenous people, they would have realized it would—

[The Environment, May 17th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and the NDP for their interest in putting forward a climate plan. However, it is interesting that over the past three years they seem not to have been paying attention to the measures that we are implementing.

The pan-Canadian framework on climate change includes over 50 measures that are going to help bring our emissions down. We have put a price on pollution that is going to put more money in the pockets of families. We have made the largest investment in the history of public transit, and by 2030, 90% of our electricity will be generated from clean resources.

With respect to the hon. member's question, we look forward to all kinds of new ideas. I would be happy to discuss with her the next steps when it comes to considering an environmental bill of rights.

[Carbon Pricing, May 16th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, again I would like to correct a number of falsehoods the member has stated.

The Conservatives put forward the universal child care benefit, and we have altered that to make sure that millionaires no longer receive child care cheques and nine out of 10 Canadian households receive more money at the end of the day. That important social policy innovation was opposed by members of the Conservative Party. With respect to day care, we are making investments that are taking a hold across the entire country right now.

I outlined why life has been made more affordable. I will not repeat my previous remarks.

With respect to the allegation that we will not reach the Paris Agreement targets, again that is false. We are going to get there. To the extent that there is any gap in the data analysis, it is because it has not factored in things like the uptake in electric vehicles; our investments in things like carbon sequestration, which will be taken up with innovation over the next number of years; and the largest single investment in public transit in the history of our country, which is going to help reduce congestion, make cities more efficient and, yes, bring emissions down. We are going to meet our Paris Agreement targets because, quite frankly, there is no choice.

[Carbon Pricing, May 16th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House to address the many aspects of the small speech the hon. member just gave.

The starting point in this analysis for me is that climate change is real. We know that it is driven by human activities and that we have an obligation and an opportunity to do something about it if we simply pull together and muster the political will to implement the solutions that we know exist.

We know, from leading experts in the field, including the winner of the Nobel Prize in economics last year, that implementing a pricing mechanism to reduce GHG emissions is the single most effective thing we can do to help reduce our emissions and prevent the worst consequences of climate change. We are not a one-trick pony. In fact, our plan has over 50 measures. Perhaps another day I would be happy to take the time to walk the hon. member through it.

With respect to the submissions he made in this chamber a moment ago, there are a number of pieces of misinformation that I want to correct. He cited a $300-a-tonne piece. That is not an initiative this government is undertaking. To suggest otherwise would be to mislead the House.

The hon. member has dramatically mischaracterized the contents of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, which in fact pointed out that 80% of households that are subject to the federal system will be better off and that the only people who will pay more are the wealthiest 20% of residents in the four provinces where the plan applies. I note in particular that the most anyone would be out of pocket, after the climate action incentive is factored in, would be the wealthiest 20% of people in Saskatchewan, who will be out of pocket for a grand total of about $50 a year. It is a dollar a week for the richest Canadians. Meanwhile, the average household of four would receive a rebate of $609.

The hon. member has also suggested that somehow big emitters are exempt under our plan. This is an absolute falsehood. Let me state unequivocally that big emitters do pay. The reason families get more as a result of this plan being in place is that big emitters are paying into the same system and the revenues are divided 90% to residents in the province in which the revenue is collected and 10% to small businesses, municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals.

With respect to the question of rural communities, I think this is very important. I represent rural communities, and I agree that not every rural community has access to public transit. We are making the largest investment in the history of public transit in Canada, which is going to pull more cars off the road. Importantly, there are things that rural residents can do as well.

I am happy to highlight the investments we are making in energy efficiency. In my home province of Nova Scotia, we are putting $56 million into a program in partnership with the Province of Nova Scotia that is helping to make the cost of everyday efficiencies more affordable, whether it is home heating or electricity. I made an announcement with some of my colleagues in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia to highlight the rebates that were put on some household products, whether it was smart thermostats or energy-efficient light bulbs, different products that would actually make things more efficient but bring the cost of living down by lowering people's power bill.

To conclude, if the member is concerned about affordability, I would question why his entire caucus opposed the Canada child benefit, which put more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families; why it opposed the middle-class tax cut for nine million Canadian families while we raised taxes on the 1%; and why it opposed a bump-up to the guaranteed income supplement for low-income single seniors.

The hon. member knows that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated that the average household will be $2,000 better off as a result of the measures we put in place. We know that the Canadians who are struggling to get by will put this money to good use. We know that we can make our homes and our country more efficient while at the same time seeing economic growth and life being made more affordable for Canadian families.

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. It is an opportunity to practice my French.

The leadership demonstrated by communities, municipalities and provinces has been incredible. We have seen a subsidy at the federal level for electric vehicles, which is the largest investment in public transit and green infrastructure in the history of Canada.

In my home province of Nova Scotia, we have partnered with the province to offer a $56-million contribution toward home efficiency. This is making life more affordable, helping reduce carbon footprint and putting people to work in my hometown.

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague for her thoughtful approach to politics. There is certainly a cognitive dissonance within the motion between items (b) and (g), as she has correctly pointed out.

Of course it is important not to leave any worker behind. I note in particular that the NDP seems not to have read some of the investments we made in budget 2019 and previously, with a total of $185 million toward a just transition that will help ensure workers are not left behind.

However, the member makes an excellent point. The NPD said that it wanted to immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies. We heard today in question period that just in her home province of Ontario, 24 indigenous communities would have their electricity shut off if we did that overnight. We need parties to do their homework before they propose ideas. That is one of the reasons I hope we can gain support for the over 50 measures our government has put forward.

The member asked a final point about the inconsistency on the position of LNG. The hypocrisy is stunning. When the leader stands and says that we should not invest in any fossil fuel subsidies and when the question is put to him whether he supports the subsidies that helped secure the investment in LNG Canada, in the province he now represents, it is stunning that he does not have the courage to express a position, whatever his position may be. I hope we will find out one day.

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I could discern, the member raised at least four distinct issues.

We do not purport to be the white knights and expect everyone to fall in line. We purport to be the reasonable adult and expect others to comport themselves in the same way.

When it comes to the phase-out of coal in my home province of Nova Scotia, the province has taken a leadership role and has had serious emissions reductions across the various parties that formed government. We are working on an equivalency agreement to ensure that if there is any extension beyond 2030, there will be equivalent measures that will reduce at least as much carbon emission from the atmosphere as occurred previously.

When it comes to the Lafarge issue in Brookfield, that decision was taken by the provincial government. If the hon. member wants to wear the responsibility of the decisions of Conservative provincial governments, I am happy to let him do so. However, I expect he will not have a job very long.

Finally, on the issue of fracking in Nova Scotia, I point out that the geology of Nova Scotia is not very well understood. There are serious issues with the age of fault lines there and we cannot predictably control the outcomes of expansion. Until we understand and know that the environmental consequences will not cause irreparable harm, it is a responsible thing to have in place.