Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the people's House and speak on behalf of the good people of Tobique—Mactaquac and New Brunswickers. It is absolutely an honour.

Today, I rise to speak to the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts regarding climate change, the environment and sustainable development. What is abundantly clear in this report is that the government has not accomplished its objectives or its stated goals, and it has not met its targets in any way, means or fashion. It is not even close. In fact, Canada is ranked last of the G7 nations in accomplishing these targets. It is an indictment on the current government for having wonderful rhetoric as it relates to the environment but absolutely atrocious results.

If I could summarize right off the top, the basis of my remarks is that there is a clear choice before us. Canadians will have a clear choice before them, and that is whether they want the approach of rhetoric or the approach of results. That choice can be clear.

I should say that I will be splitting my time with the member from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

For so long, we have heard speech after speech in the House, presentation after presentation and announcement after announcement, some with lofty ideals and tremendous goals, and they sound excellent.

Who would not want two billion trees to be planted? It is a wonderful announcement. It was fantastic in 2019. The government said it was going to plant two billion trees, which is a great goal and objective.

I will update members on the results of that rhetoric. The rhetoric was to plant two billion trees. What percentage of that number has been accomplished in the five years since the Liberals made it? They accomplished 0.4% of their grandiose announcement of planting two billion trees. Canadians say it was tremendous rhetoric that made them feel warm and fuzzy.

Canadians were promised that the planet would heal, the weather would change and the tides would recede if only they implemented the Liberals' policy ideas, such as carbon tax, which, as a result of its implementation, we can clearly see has not accomplished the results, other than diminishing the amount of money left over in Canadians' pocketbooks at the end of the day. It has been a tax with no results.

The Liberals promised big plantations of trees, and there are very few trees to show for it. They promised that our environment and our ranking in dealing with the challenges in the environment would improve as a result of their approach, but, I am sad to say, we rank last of the G7 countries. Canadians are tired of soaring rhetoric. They are tired of lofty promises. They want tangible, achievable, real results.

Everyone in the House wants to be good stewards of the planet. I believe that. We want to hand off to future generations a better and cleaner planet than the way we found it. That is a great goal. We on this side of the House fully agree with that, but the question is how we approach attaining that goal. How does the House best implement policies that would make a real difference without punishing our own citizens and taxing our own people into absolute dependence upon an ever-growing, ever-expanding government? How do we do that? It is going to take practical and common-sense approaches. It is all of the above.

There is an ancient writing that put it this way: We should cast our bread upon many waters to see what comes back and what will prosper because we do not know exactly which way or which approach may work best. Conservatives believe in all the above when it comes to resource development and energy. We believe in being responsible, good stewards, but we also believe that we need to have the backs of Canadian energy producers and natural resource workers.

We need to take a back seat to no one when it comes to our environmental practices as it relates to resource development. We have the best environmental practices in the world. We have the best extraction practices, and we have some of the lowest emissions related to production of energy and natural resource supplies.

Why would we take a back seat, shut down those industries, put our boots on the backs of those producers and then outsource our energy needs to nations that do not have near the environmental regulations nor the ethical approaches to paying people good wages for producing those resources? I would say that we should stick up for Canadian producers, stand on the side of Canadian natural resources, tell the good story of natural resource development and say that it will do the planet a whole lot of good to have Canadian energy on the market.

People are tired of us talking down what we do here in Canada. We do a great job, and we do not need to take a back seat to anyone. Our environmental record is stellar, and it has not been done through taxation. It has been done through innovation and expansion of better technologies. We believe in that on this side of the House. We need more of that approach.

We need practical approaches that make a real, tangible difference. Yes, let us plant those trees, but let us do it comprehensively and let us do it with a real plan and a focus. One of the biggest gaping holes in the Liberals' approach to the environment, which, again, goes back to their rhetoric over results approach, is that there is a massive gaping hole. It is the lack of meaningful consultation with those whose lives and livelihoods are most impacted and affected by their policies and decisions.

For example, I sit on the fisheries and oceans committee, and do members know what we hear there? Some of these policies are going to have devastating consequences for the industry and for livelihoods. I ask the House, and I ask the government, who would want a better, healthier future for the fisheries in Canada than those whose livelihoods depend upon the fisheries and the health of our waters? It is our harvesters and those living in coastal communities, but they have been overlooked in the policy development of the government. They are frustrated because they are saying that they want clean oceans, that this is their livelihood, that this is their future. They want healthy fish stocks because that is where they derive their livelihoods from, but we ignore them.

I go to the farmers. Who wants better, healthier and cleaner lands than our farmers, who produce the best food in the world and work from morning until night to make sure goods and food are delivered to Canadians? Who does that more than our farmers? We have a gaping hole in the government's approach. Liberals do not consult properly with our farmers when coming up with their policies around the ways and means of agriculture. They pass these rules and bring in these taxes, and they devastate those industries. As a result, they are frustrated and left out of the circle. It is the gaping hole that leads to the vast expanse between their rhetoric and their results.

There is one other sector I want to talk to members about and that is in regard to forest management. We all know that the greatest cleaner of the Earth's atmosphere is our trees. Canada is blessed with an abundance of trees with some of the best forest coverage in the world. We do not get nearly the adequate credit for that, yet what do they do? They made a grandiose announcement that two billion trees were going to be planted. They then deliver 0.4% of that target in five years.

I ask the Liberals if they have consulted with those who are experts in the field of forest management. Have they consulted with some of the largest tree producers as well as tree planters in the world? I know for a fact that they have not talked with many of them. As a result, they wonder why we cannot get trees in the ground. Perhaps it is because of the gaping hole between the rhetoric and their results.

They have not consulted with those who are most connected to the very industries they are talking about. It is time we changed approach. It is time we got back to meaningful consultation with those who are most affected by the policies. I believe that, if we get on the right side of this, we could win this debate, but more than win the debate, we could get the results that Canadians are demanding in being responsible stewards for our country's environment. We can improve our results and our outcomes by having a common-sense approach.

What better way to get that than to have a carbon tax election so Canadians can weigh in on this?

Richard Bragdon

$532,427.00