William Amos

[Global Warming, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is such a privilege to take part in this debate.

Sometimes we have to look for different sources of inspiration. As we debate climate change here today, I am thinking of my constituents, the good people of the Pontiac region, who were recently affected by flooding in 2017 and the tornados in 2018. I am thinking about the future of our children and our communities, both rural and urban.

I am struck as I think about how important this debate is. I think about my children and what they will want to have heard from me when we talk about this issue.

I have a lot of constituents right now who are angry. They are angry because they feel as though the debate around climate change is becoming, in some unfortunate way, toxic. Quite frankly, that is because members of the opposition, in particular the Conservatives, are convincing Canadians that a discussion among reasonable human beings around the pricing of carbon pollution is something to be feared. They are playing the games of fear and division around humanity's very survival. It is unacceptable.

I will not stand by idly and represent the good people of Pontiac and allow this debate, at least from the mouth of the representative of the Pontiac, to be a toxic one. It cannot be because there is too much at stake. It has to be a positive discussion. We have all heard about the IPCC report.

There is no denying the facts. We all know that the effects of climate change can be devastating, and we need to act immediately. Yes, our government is taking action, with a range of measures. We are putting a price on pollution, we are investing in public transit and we are phasing out the use of carbon-based pollutants.

Coal is being phased out and that is a huge development in this country. There are so many investments in housing, so many investments in public transit. It is time for us to cease this never-ending cycle of criticism about some phantom job-killing carbon tax on everything.

It is the rhetoric of the previous government, the Harper government, which is being resurrected presently. It is so unfortunate, because the average Canadian knows that a price on carbon is not going to kill jobs. Pricing pollution works to create jobs and benefit the economy while we bend that curve toward a low-carbon economy. We can create jobs for the middle class. We can help our towns become more resilient to protect themselves and adapt against future floods and fires. We can do this and we can do so in such a way that it does not tear apart the threads of national unity.

However, it seems as though it has become so politically expedient to play to a political party's base and rehash the rhetoric, the appalling rhetoric around “job-killing carbon taxes”.

Personally, I prefer to talk about success stories and future projects. I will focus on some wonderful initiatives happening in Pontiac. I would first like to talk about small local projects, such as the Véloroute des Draveurs, a 21-kilometre-long bike path. It is one of the most important announcements made in the Gatineau valley since we took office in 2015.

The bike path has become a major tourist attraction in the Gatineau valley. The federal government invested half a million dollars in it. It is a place for families to ride their bikes and spend time outdoors. This is the kind of infrastructure investment our government supports. There is a bike path in Chelsea on Notch Road and Mine Road. That is my community. We are so pleased to have supported that project. The bike path will be part of the Pink Road extension in Gatineau.

This is another example of an infrastructure project that is all about sustainable development and creating an economy and a community for the next generation, for a time when carbon is down and quality of life is up.

However, there are big projects as well, many really interesting projects coming up. I was proud to stand with my colleague, the MP for Hull—Aylmer, with the mayor of Gatineau and a number of councillors in support of a major light rail train initiative that is being proposed for Gatineau. It could have transformative effects on the entire regional economy, rural and urban. It is the kind of visionary public transit project that would only be possible with a $180-billion over 10-year federal infrastructure plan. We could not have had that conversation.

Now Gatineau, the City of Ottawa, Quebec, Ontario and the federal government are having a serious discussion about transformative infrastructure in our region. These are the conversations we are having presently. Will these projects, a small bike path, a major light rail project, or the expansion of a rural bus service like Transcollines, individually make that difference? No, maybe not on their own, but taken collectively we can get there. It is going to require that kind of commitment in our budget.

Talking about commitment in our budget, our government has taken the unprecedented measure of investing $1.3 billion over four years to ensure that we move the yardsticks forward and conserve our protected spaces and our species at risk. That is a major initiative and yes it is related to climate change because as the IPCC notes quite correctly, the species extinction crisis we are facing right now is only exacerbated by climate change. It is part and parcel of the same problem.

We are taking responsibility financially. We are putting in place the market-based measures that are absolutely fundamentally necessary to get us to that place where Canadians are able to say we have started to make a difference with our local projects and we have started to make a difference with our everyday purchases. I know that we are going to be able to say that we have done better. Do we all need to collectively go further? Absolutely. Individually, I need to do more and I expect everyone in the House believes the same.

Let us tone down the rhetoric please around this idea that a price on pollution is somehow going to destroy the fabric of our country and turn our economy upside down. It will not. The average Canadian knows that and I would challenge any Conservative to knock on the doors of the good people of Pontiac, those people who suffered through floods, those people who have lost portions of their house in the past month. I would dare Conservatives to knock on the doors of the good people of Pontiac and say climate change is not costing them anything right now. It is already costing Canadians and yes, we have to price that pollution because it is the only way to get there.

[Community Mental Health Organization, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, October 10 was World Mental Health Day.

I recently had a chance to visit La Maison le Ricochet, in the community of Sainte-Cécile-de-Masham. This organization works to improve the quality of life of people struggling with mental illness by providing rehabilitation and reintegration services and supporting their loved ones.

For over 28 years, Le Ricochet has helped people across the Outaouais who are struggling with mental health issues get back on their feet. In addition to residential services, their day centre offers different programs, from support groups and a carpentry workshop where they make the beautiful furniture sold in their boutique.

I want to thank executive director Marc Beauchamp, clinical coordinator Anne Doiron, and the entire team of staff and volunteers for their dedication and professionalism. Their outstanding work makes a big difference in the lives of many Canadians, especially in the Pontiac region.

[Post-Secondary Education, September 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last week, students across Canada returned to university, CEGEP and college. We can be proud of our world-class post-secondary institutions and our students, who are the leaders of tomorrow.

In this vein, I am proud to be welcoming a group of 1968 Canadian Rhodes Scholars and their spouses to Parliament Hill today for their 50-year reunion. This includes my father, Bruce Amos, and Pontiac constituent Rick French. The Rhodes Scholarship to study at the University of Oxford, of which a number of our honourable colleagues in this chamber were recipients, is the oldest and most prestigious graduate scholarship in the world. The recipients are motivated to engage with global challenges, commit to the service of others and show promise of becoming value-driven, principled leaders for the world's future.

The Rhodes scholars of 1968, like all recipients of the Rhodes Scholarship, can serve as role models and examples for all students returning to school this month in Canada.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate we have a shared vision of the need to put a price on carbon. What I would say is the following. The Prime Minister has been very clear that we need to grow our economy, while at the same time protecting our environment. These go hand in hand.

The simple fact is that Canadians cannot be treated for fools. There is absolutely no such thing as dealing with climate change in the absence of having a broader perspective on what it takes to grow jobs for the middle class. A price on carbon is absolutely core to the system.

While the opposition, with respect, is engaging in all sorts of false debates around what an investment in the Trans Mountain pipeline project is all about, it is distracting from a much more important policy issue, which is how we are going to ensure that Canada integrates a price on pollution so that all economic actors are able to contribute in an appropriate way to a cleaner and greener economy.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. It is always a pleasure as the member for Pontiac to speak about farmers. The single largest economic group of contributors to our region is the agricultural sector. I know that they are sensible people, and they know full well the damage that is being wrought by climate change right now. Everyone understands when floods ravage crops. Last year was a very difficult year for Pontiac farmers. It was very difficult to get the crops seeded and have a successful year. That is a direct result of changing weather patterns.

We need to be responsible about this. The federal government with its pricing system has made it very clear that all direct revenues will be going right back to the provinces, and the provinces are free to give the farmers what they need in order to deal with different costs associated with the price on carbon.

It is absolutely possible for farmers to be treated justly and fairly, and that is part of our plan.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have a chance to speak, and I will be sharing my time with the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

Canadians understand that polluting the air we breathe and the earth and the oceans that feed us must come at a cost to those who pollute. That is because they incur real costs for all Canadians. These costs are incurred through drought, smog, wild fires, and the effects pollution has on water, food, and the air we breathe. The price we pay is for our health and our future. The financial costs of pollution for Canadians are also very real. Last year in the Pontiac, my constituents felt it first-hand with the floods that ravaged our region.

Climate change alone is expected to cost Canadians $5 billion a year by 2020. We know that pricing pollution is the most effective way to reduce the emissions that bring about these costs, because it creates incentives for businesses and households to innovate and pollute less. That is why putting a price on carbon pollution is so central to our government's plan to fight climate change while at the same time growing the economy, creating jobs for the middle class and those working so hard to join it, and creating a better future for all Canadians.

The idea here is really simple, and the average Canadian does understand this. We are putting a price on what we do not want, which is carbon pollution, and we are fostering that which we do want, lower emissions and job creation through innovation in the clean economy. We are putting this plan into place through the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act. With this legislation, the carbon price will be fair and it will be effective. It is based on a practical approach to minimize the impact on the competitiveness of large industries that are emissions intensive.

I want to assure the hon. members on both sides of this House that this legislation was not developed in isolation. We know that it was developed through collaboration. We know that it was developed in consultation with the provinces, the territories, and indigenous people. Hand in hand, we have worked towards this plan, and it is an important part of our pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. I want to commend the environment minister for her hard work with colleagues across the country to achieve this.

This framework is our plan, developed to meet our emissions reduction targets, to grow the economy, and to build resilience to a changing climate. To support the implementation of this plan, our approach provides provinces and territories with the flexibility to choose between systems: an explicit price-based system, or a cap and trade system.

A price on carbon pollution, as we all know, is already in place in four provinces: Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta. These provinces encompass over 80% of the Canadian population. In jurisdictions that do not have a pricing system that meets the federal standard, a federal pricing system will apply as of January 1, 2019, starting at a price of $20 per tonne of emissions.

It is important to note that the direct revenue from the carbon price on pollution under the federal system will go back to the province or territory of origin. I would like to point out to those who suggest that a price on carbon pollution will somehow negatively impact the financial health of Canadians that those provinces that already have a price on carbon pollution are, together, leading the rest of Canada in job growth. We are confident that we are going to see the same positive economic performance in other provinces and territories that have yet to implement carbon pricing systems.

I want to focus on the fact that the majority of Canadians understand this already, despite the misinformation from our colleagues in the Conservative Party. The majority of Canadians support this approach. My constituents in the Pontiac support it, and experts support it. There is a strong consensus among economists, scientists, governments around the world, and policy experts that a price on carbon is the single most important policy a government can put in place to deal with climate change.

I would like to take a moment to go to some of the comments I have heard from the Insurance Bureau of Canada, an obviously non-partisan institution that is an expert on the impacts climate change is presently having on our economy. The Insurance Bureau of Canada has publicly stated, repeatedly, that climate change is already costing Canadian taxpayers and home insurance policyholders billions of dollars every year. It has sounded the alarm. Climate change is not some future threat but is very real and a clear and present danger. It has stated publicly that the cost of pricing carbon is dwarfed by the future cost Canadians will face if we do nothing at all.

Here are its facts.

Residential property losses from severe weather have accelerated due to climate change and now total over $1 billion a year on average. Federal disaster relief losses also now average over $1 billion per year, and they continue to escalate, largely driven by climate change. Those are federal numbers only, and they do not even include the losses by provinces and municipalities. I can tell members that in the Pontiac last year, there were millions of dollars lost in property damage and public infrastructure damage due to flooding.

As a result of these rising losses, municipalities across the country are investing heavily in adaptation. The City of Toronto alone is investing $1.5 billion to upgrade its stormwater infrastructure to protect residents from the growing threat. Obviously, in the riding that I represent, in the City of Gatineau and over 40 municipalities in rural Pontiac, we are talking about millions of dollars of new investments to protect our communities.

At the end of the day, whether it is taxpayers or insured policyholders, it is the same Canadians who are now bearing the costs of our past inaction on climate change. When I say “our past inaction”, I also mean the party opposite's past inaction. The Conservative government did literally nothing to get our country moving on the right track on this file. That is one of the major reasons that I sought to become elected back in 2015.

With respect, politicians who say that they believe that we have to do something about climate change but not by using a carbon price are no better than those who deny that humans cause climate change or that gravity exists. Frankly, Canadians have no time for one-sided populist rhetoric, the kind of rhetoric that we are hearing from the opposite side right now, and they have no time for the lame partisanship that dumbs down a very serious and important policy debate.

Climate change is the single most important threat that we are facing in the world today and the science is clear that humans are causing it. If the Conservative Party of Canada has a real alternative to carbon pricing that would be effective, I would love to hear it. However, we know from experience that vague promises and ineffective voluntary actions are going to do nothing to reduce greenhouse gases. The Conservative Party opposite has no plan. It has no plan apart from some specious attempt to score political points on the backs of Canadians. It has no plan apart from a desire to divide and misinform Canadians.

I would like to point to the Globe and Mail editorial from a couple of months ago. It inspired me, and I thank this publication for stating this. It states:

...Canadians like carbon pricing when it does precisely what it is meant to do. But they tune out and focus on other priorities when carbon pricing is portrayed as...[a] costly, anti-oil and job-killing by populist politicians.

It’s all too easy to turn carbon pricing into a populist wedge issue, when in fact it is a sensible and centrist....carbon strategy, under which the...[federal government] will impose a $10 per tonne obligation later this year (rising to $50 in 2022) on jurisdictions that don’t come up with an equivalent policy.

It also said that the federal government, with respect to its national carbon strategy, under which the feds will impose this $10 per tonne obligation, will be returning the money collected to the province from where it came.

It further stated:

More than anything, what Canada needs is for politicians who understand and believe in carbon pricing to defend it vigorously and fearlessly. It’s tough to do battle with populists who sloganize about “job-killing” carbon taxes. But they are wrong, and this is a fight worth winning.

That is from the Globe and Mail editorial. I thank it for saying that because it is an adult voice in the room. We, the Liberal Party, this government, has a plan. We have a plan to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, to 517 megatonnes. Along with all the other measures in Canada's clean growth and climate action plan, the pan-Canadian framework for carbon pricing will put Canada on track to meet our 2030 emissions targets, which will help meet our commitments to the global community. This is so fundamental, because greenhouse gases know no national boundaries. By putting a price on carbon, we are going to join 67 other jurisdictions that have already taken this important step. According to the World Bank, those overseas jurisdictions together represent half of the global economy and more than a quarter of global GHG emissions. Therefore, together we are going to make the world a better place. To act otherwise would be a total dereliction of our duty as federal lawmakers.

It would be a dereliction of my duty as the representative of Pontiac, and as a father of two children. It would be a betrayal of our children, our grandchildren, and of generations to come.

In closing, I would simply like to say that with our climate plan we are building on these successes for a cleaner environment and a more prosperous future for all Canadians. I appreciate the opportunity to deliver these views from Pontiac.

[The Environment, June 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, on April 22, we celebrated Earth Day. That day, Canada joined the international community in focusing on the importance of protecting the environment.

Clean-up activities took place across the country. Vast quantities of discarded single-use plastics represent a huge waste of energy and resources and are threatening our marine species.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change tell the House about what the government has been doing lately to tackle plastic waste and marine litter?

[Impact Assessment Act, June 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of incorporating the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Bill C-69 was an important one. We had lengthy discussions during the committee proceedings. We on this side of the House most certainly feel that incorporating indigenous rights and ensuring they are respected and that the constitutional protections afforded to indigenous rights are given pride of place in this legislation is of absolutely fundamental importance. That is exactly what we achieved.

Many amendments were brought to Bill C-69 in relation to indigenous rights, including but not limited to UNDRIP, and I mentioned others related to traditional knowledge. Members on this side of the House are extremely proud of how that was achieved.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to work with the member opposite who represents Abbotsford. I have enjoyed many positive moments on our standing committee and have great respect for the work he does.

With all due respect, I would refer the member to an opinion editorial that I had published in The Globe and Mail in 2012, where I laid out the critique of the previous government's changes to navigation law in Canada. When the changes were made, Canadians' ability to navigate was still protected by the common law, but most of their statutory rights previously protected by Transport Canada were stripped away. The statutory protections for navigation were stripped away, leaving the public with common law protections only.

I take the point that there is a distinction to be drawn between navigation protections and environmental protections. That is an absolutely valid point to make. However there is no doubt that in past, environmental assessment laws, which Canadian waters were subject to prior to the previous government, the required navigational permitting triggered an environmental assessment. That is how it used to work. The Conservative government stripped all of that away, so we needed to find a new way to bring back navigation protections and a robust impact assessment regime. That is what Bill C-69 seeks to achieve.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-69, which is very important.

Following the debate on the previous government's reform of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, I was very pleased to see that we are moving forward with this bill, which is the product of extensive consultation over the past two years.

I would like to recognize the hard work that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development did on this file. The committee heard from more than 50 witnesses and received 150 briefs. Several hundred amendments were proposed, 130 of which were adopted. It is therefore clear that this was a very robust process, and I would like to commend my colleagues for the work they did in committee. I was very impressed by their willingness to consider possible improvements.

I would like to focus a bit on that aspect in particular. I note our chair and vice-chair are sitting opposite having a discussion, likely on topics related to the committee's work. This committee was charged with an important assignment, which was to ensure democracy functioned in the context of reviewing complex legislation.

If we rewind to 2012, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 was incorporated into the previous Conservative government's budget bill. It was an entire replacement of the previous Environmental Assessment Act. It was brought through the omnibus budget bill and there were no hearings specifically on the bill to reform the environmental assessment rules. That was criticized across the country, from indigenous communities to environmental groups. Even municipal actors were literally appalled at the anti-democratic approach taken to amend that law.

Therefore, the pendulum swings back a bit. We knew and committed in the previous campaign to reforming that legislation. Thankfully, pursuant to many months of consultation, a better starting point, which was Bill C-69, was achieved. However, when it went to committee, to the committee's great credit, all sorts of analysis was brought to bear from members opposite , from the New Democratic Party, the Green Party, and the Conservative Party. Every party that participated, with the possible exception of the Bloc, independent Bloc, and the CCF, brought forward an amendment that was voted upon and approved, which is a remarkable achievement.

It is also important to note that the government, in particular the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Natural Resources have commented positively on the amendments brought forward by the committee, on which we will subsequently be voting.

One hundred and fifty amendments were made. The government is responding positively to the fact that these changes are being brought in to ensure openness and transparency, improve public participation, better engage indigenous communities, and to provide greater predictability and certainty for our businesses and those who wish to bring good projects forward. The fact that agreement could be reached on 150 amendments is a tremendous statement and says a lot about the state of democracy right now. That is a really important thing.

I would like to first look at some of the amendments, particularly those related to reconciliation and navigable waters.

With regard to reconciliation, I was very proud to work with my colleagues, including opposition members, to propose amendments that would incorporate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into the bill. That is very important and our government supports enshrining the declaration in law through Bill C-262, which will soon become law.

I would like to congratulate those who worked on Bill C-69, because including the declaration in future impact assessments across the country will be very good for reconciliation and for the development of nation-to-nation relationships.

I would also like to mention how the bill now provides for calling on indigenous peoples' knowledge and expertise when impact assessments are conducted. That will help to improve future project analyses. We need to improve our way of working with indigenous peoples on impact assessments.

Protection of waterways is another very important aspect, and we all know the former government scrapped several provisions protecting navigable waters. Since 2015, the government has been working very hard to improve those protections because waterways and navigation rights are protected not only by statute but also under common law.

The protections for navigable waters are of crucial importance to Canadians, and certainly to the constituents I represent in the Pontiac.

With respect to navigation, very important changes were brought by the committee to ensure water flows would be protected. That is a really crucial piece of the puzzle. Why? Because many Canadian communities, indigenous groups, and paddling groups were concerned that projects might move forward and would not receive the necessary scrutiny, that the law would not necessarily enable protection of the flows of water that would go down various waterways, whether that is the Ottawa River, the Gatineau River, the St. Lawrence Seaway, or other major waterways. That is a key point, and I am very proud our committee brought forward those amendments.

Overall, I would like to conclude by suggesting that beyond the hyperbole, beyond all of the easy, partisan criticism that has been lobbed from the other side, at the end of the day, Canadians are looking for a stronger process that builds trust when good projects come forward and ensures the independence of decision-makers in the context of evaluating projects. We need the public to not only know that a good analysis is being done, but that this analysis is being done independently, on the basis of solid, hard evidence, and on the basis of the engagement of Canada's indigenous peoples.

I am really proud of the work our government has done. Bill C-69 is a good starting point. The committee worked very hard to achieve improvements on it. I commend the government for its positive reaction to the changes brought forward by the standing committee.