Bill C-12 (Historical)

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050

This enactment requires that national targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada be set, with the objective of attaining net-zero emissions by 2050. The targets are to be set by the Minister of the Environment for 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045.
In order to promote transparency and accountability in relation to meeting those targets, the enactment also
(a) requires that an emissions reduction plan, a progress report and an assessment report with respect to each target be tabled in each House of Parliament;
(b) provides for public participation;
(c) establishes an advisory body to provide the Minister of the Environment with advice with respect to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and matters that are referred to it by the Minister;
(d) requires the Minister of Finance to prepare an annual report respecting key measures that the federal public administration has taken to manage its financial risks and opportunities related to climate change;
(e) requires the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to, at least once every five years, examine and report on the Government of Canada’s implementation of measures aimed at mitigating climate change; and
(f) provides for a comprehensive review of the Act five years after its coming into force.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I have one more quick question if I may, Mr. Chair.

Minister, one of your colleagues speaking in the House mentioned that, in his opinion, C-12 provides an ideal evidentiary base for a potential plaintiff to bring forth climate change litigation against the government for inaction.

Has this aspect of Bill C-12 been confirmed through a legal review and, if so, would you be willing to table that review with the committee?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, you've already established the net-zero advisory body prior to finalizing the legislation that enables its establishment. I think for many people this feels a little bit like putting the cart before the horse. Why not wait until C-12 has been finalized before appointing members to the advisory body?

[Kristina Michaud, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for taking the time to answer our questions.

I also thank the witnesses for being here.

Minister, the current version of Bill C-12 does not contain a GHG reduction target. In fact, subsection 7(2) states that you will establish the target within six months of the act coming into force. Yet, last April, you announced that your new target range would be a 40% to 45% reduction in GHGs by 2030, compared to that of 2005.

In question period, I asked whether your government would include this new target range in the act. Minister Guilbeault, who seems to have a fairly senior position in your department, replied that this new target would indeed be included in the act.

Can you confirm this statement?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I will start by saying that Bill C-12 is intended to hold the federal government to its commitment to achieve net zero by 2050—and all governments hence forth—and exceed our 2030 Paris target. The act would require the Government of Canada to set national targets every five years, starting in 2030, for the reduction of GHGs in Canada in order to achieve net zero by 2050. It would hold the government to account through a process to achieve that target, and targets must be based on the best scientific information available and on Canada's international climate commitments. These targets and their associated emissions reduction plans would be developed with advice from the independent net-zero advisory body and through consultations with Canadians.

There are a whole range of documents that will be fully public based on the various reporting mechanisms. More broadly, I think the act demonstrates to Canadians and the global community the Government of Canada's ongoing commitment to taking bold action on climate change.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you to the minister for being here and to the officials who will be speaking in the last half-hour of this panel.

Over the last several months, I've been hearing from a lot of Guelphites on C-12, many of whom have offered their support for this legislation. They're lending ideas already. They've told me that the bill needs to be prioritized and passed as soon as possible. They're offering meaningful support for us to have these discussions.

Of particular interest to my constituents was the piece in this legislation that offers a greater opportunity for the participation of Canadians on the climate objectives in the climate crisis. Could the minister elaborate on this by letting us know how we're going to be engaging with Canadians on this legislation as we move forward with it?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Thank you for the invitation to discuss with you Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act.

I would start by thanking members of this committee for undertaking a timely examination of this bill. I understand it is a constituency week. With the climate crisis before us, we obviously cannot afford to wait.

Over 120 countries have already made a commitment to net zero by 2050, including our biggest trading partner south of the border. Major Canadian companies have also made this commitment.

As I have said, I remain very open to constructive amendments that will further strengthen Bill C-12. I look forward to the committee's work in this regard, and I remain committed to an approach of co-operation and collaboration. That is how the parliamentary process should work and I firmly believe that is what Canadians expect of their elected representatives.

Bill C-12 codifies the government's commitment for Canada to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, and our newly announced target for 2030. It also creates a detailed accountability and transparency regime to ensure that we methodically plan, report and course correct on our way to net zero.

In December of last year, we published Canada's strengthened climate plan. This plan is one of the most detailed GHG reduction plans in the world.

Recognizing the scientific imperative for early and ambitious action, we announced a new 2030 target of a 40% to 45% reduction in GHG emissions at the Leaders Summit on Climate in April.

Measures announced in budget 2021, along with ongoing work with our American colleagues on issues including transportation and methane, will support that new target. We know more action will be required. This continued ambition is what Canadians expect—that we will continue to prioritize climate action, and that we will work to achieve targets that are aligned with science.

To ensure we meet our targets, Bill C-12 requires that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change prepare two types of reports, both of which are required to be tabled in Parliament and made available to the public: progress reports and assessment reports.

Progress reports will provide updates on Canada's progress towards achieving the target for the next milestone year and any additional measures that could be taken to achieve the target. Each progress report must be prepared at least two years before the relevant milestone year.

Assessments reports, on the other hand, will explain whether the most recent target was achieved. If Canada fails to achieve a target, the minister must explain why and include a description of actions the government will take to address the failed target. Each assessment report must be prepared within 30 days of Canada submitting its GHG inventory report to the UNFCC for the relevant target year.

Bill C-12 also holds the government to account by requiring the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development to regularly examine and report on the government's implementation of the climate change mitigation measures, including those undertaken to achieve each target.

The bill establishes an advisory body of up to 15 members, which will provide advice to the minister and conduct engagement on pathways to achieve net-zero by 2050.

The advisory body must submit an annual report and the minister must publicly respond to their advice.

All of this is in addition to our existing reporting requirements under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. My department has developed a chart outlining the suite of reporting requirements and transparency mechanisms, which will be provided to this committee.

By putting our climate obligations into law, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act would ensure that governments are accountable for and transparent about their actions to combat climate change. Bill C-12 would require all future governments to table strong climate plans, based on science, to address the threat of climate change.

Canadians are counting on us to have constructive discussions to strengthen this legislation, but they are also looking for us to enshrine the commitment to net zero and a pathway to get there in law.

I look forward to the robust discussion on Bill C-12 at this committee, but I also hope that this legislation will be moved forward as expeditiously as possible.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I will call the meeting to order.

Welcome to the 32nd meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, for the first meeting of our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-12.

I think everyone here is experienced with the modus operandi of committees, especially in virtual space, so I won't go over that.

We have with us again today, with great pleasure, Minister Wilkinson. Joining him, from the Department of Finance is Mr. Samuel Millar, director general, corporate finance, natural resources and environment, economic development and corporate finance branch. We also have, from the Department of the Environment, John Moffet, who was with us as well last week, assistant deputy minister, environmental protection branch; and Douglas Nevison, who was with us last week as well, assistant deputy minister, climate change branch.

I will now invite Minister Wilkinson to make his opening remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

By way of alerting members to what we're doing next week, which is a break week, we've decided to meet for three three-hour meetings. The meetings will be May 17, 19 and 20, on Bill C-12.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Clerk, but I believe that the meetings start at 2:30 p.m., for three hours, so for 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Because of various rules around the House administration, they will be entirely virtual meetings. I would discourage anyone from showing up to the committee room next week for any meetings.

As I mentioned before, we'll have the minister lead off on May 17 at 2:30 p.m.

Ms. McLeod, did I see a hand go up?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I'm pleased to be with you today to discuss the 2021-22 main estimates for Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Parks Canada Agency and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.

I am joining you today from beautiful north Vancouver, which is on the traditional ancestral and unceded territories of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam first nations.

As the chair noted, I am accompanied by a number of officials who will assist me as required.

Since we last met, the government has remained focused on safeguarding the health of Canadians. We've also been focused on laying the groundwork to build a healthier environment and a healthier economy.

The economic recovery that will follow this pandemic will be defined by the global transition to a low-carbon economy. This is an opportunity that Canada cannot miss.

Over the course of the last number of weeks and months, our government has delivered on key commitments to address the twin threats of climate change and biodiversity loss. We unveiled an ambitious but achievable target to reduce our emissions by 40% to 45% by 2030. Our target is supported by a detailed, strengthened climate plan containing over 64 new measures and billions of dollars in new investments.

To ensure that this government and future governments are held to account on climate action, we have put forward Bill C-12, the Canadian Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act. I look forward to this committee’s consideration of the Bill and remain open to constructive amendments that will strengthen the legislation.

Further, through Budget 2021 we are investing an historic $4 billion to ensure we protect 25% of our land and water by 2025 and 30% of each by 2030, and that we protect species at risk.

We are moving forward with a comprehensive agenda to eliminate plastic pollution, including a ban on harmful single-use plastics, making producers responsible for their plastic waste and developing minimum recycled content standards for products. These measures will drive a circular economy for plastics, representing a significant environmental and economic opportunity that will reduce greenhouse gases and create thousands of new jobs.

We've also introduced the first substantive update to Canada's cornerstone environmental protection legislation, CEPA, in over 20 years. Bill C-28 will recognize, for the first time in federal law, Canadians' right to a healthy environment. It will better protect Canadians and the environment from toxic substances.

With regard to the main estimates, total authorities for Environment and Climate Change Canada in 2021-22 amount to just under $1.7 billion. While this appears to be a decrease relative to 2020-21, this difference is, in part, due to delays in the rollout of the low-carbon economy fund as a result of COVID-19, as well as delays in submitting proposals by provinces and territories. This funding will be re-profiled into future years to ensure provinces and territories can access all funds that have been committed and approved.

Additionally, the climate incentive fund and the chemicals management plan both had fixed start and end dates by design. These programs came to their scheduled end dates. However, the CMP was renewed in budget 2021 and other investments were also announced in the budget. Subject to parliamentary approval, these decisions will be reflected in future estimates.

It is expected that funding for Environment and Climate Change Canada will increase in subsequent estimates due to budget 2021 investments.

For Parks Canada, the Agency’s Main Estimates for 2021-22 are approximately $1.129 billion, which represents an increase of $26.1 million when compared to the previous year. This increase is primarily due to the ratification of collective agreements.

For new funding, the largest item is $222.1 million to support capital assets in Canada’s national parks, conservation areas and historic sites.

For the Impact Assessment Agency, the main estimates total $79 million, which represents a $2.5-million increase compared to the 2020-21 main estimates. That difference is primarily due to an increase in the agency's grants and contributions to support public and indigenous participation.

As I noted at the beginning of my remarks, our government's top priority remains supporting Canadians through the pandemic, but we recognize that we need to look toward the future and lay the groundwork for a sustainable recovery. We have made significant progress, and many of these initiatives are captured in these main estimates.

I look forward to discussing them with you today.

[Dr. Laure Waridel]

So we are speaking today as mothers who are part of Mothers Step In, a movement of mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers from all walks of life, joining forces to protect our children's future. There are 5,600 of us across Quebec and beyond. Twenty-five groups are active locally, which requires political courage at the municipal, federal and provincial levels. In Canada, we work with For Our Kids.

We feel that, to protect our children's future, we must protect the environment and social justice. That is why we have been calling for months for a fair and green recovery and are providing our elected members with the document “101 ideas for the recovery”, part of the Pact for the Transition, to which we have provided a link at the end of our brief.

To avoid crises like the one caused by COVID-19, we must urgently transform our economy. Much more is needed than the greening of technologies. We must address overconsumption and waste. We have known for a long time that the planet's resources are limited, as is the capacity of ecosystems to absorb our waste, including plastics, of course. An increase in unlimited material and energy consumption in a world with limited resources is mathematically impossible, and it is up to our governments to implement the regulations necessary to remaining within planetary boundaries.

You, who are our elected representatives or work with them, must immediately stop supporting anything that contributes to a gradual destruction of life on Earth. On the contrary, you must encourage whatever protects the Earth. Here are a few concrete ways that would help put words into action for a fair and green recovery.

First, real climate legislation must be passed, and subsidies for fossil fuels must end.

As elected members of the House of Commons, you have the power to act so that Canada would have a real piece of climate legislation. It is imperative to improve Bill C–12 on net-zero emissions, so that measures would be implemented to require us to meet scientifically established targets as quickly as possible, without waiting for 2050. Canada must adopt accountability and transparency rules as soon as possible. Starting now, the government must consider all the repercussions of climate decisions from coast to coast and from north to south.

A real climate test should force the government to immediately stop subsidizing fossil fuels and to do away with the Trans Mountain pipeline. According to official figures from the Energy Policy Tracker, since the beginning of the pandemic alone, the Canadian government has invested more than $30 billion in subsidies for the fossil fuel sector. That is equivalent to over $800 per Canadian, without taking Trans Mountain into account, which will cost taxpayers more than $12.6 billion over the next few years.

Right now, our government is funding the destruction of our children's future. That money must be invested in the economy's green transition. The Canadian government must directly support workers and communities that depend on fossil fuels, so that they can start looking for solutions.

Second, focus should be placed on the green tax system.

That would help internalize the environmental and social costs of products and services. The polluter pays principle should be applied along the economic chain. That will create real incentives for investing and disinvesting money in order to reduce the environmental footprint of our individual and collective behaviours. Since the wealthy consume more goods and typically pollute more than those less well off, they would have to take on their fair share of responsibility.

The carbon pricing policy implemented by the current government must be only the beginning. Extended producer responsibility in terms of producers' impact on the environment and on society must apply to all economic sectors and to all types of pollution along the economic chain.

I have unfortunately gone over my time, but I want to appeal to you once more. We are asking you to make decisions that truly take into account the future of our children, and of your children and grandchildren.

Thank you for your attention.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Just for clarity purposes, I'd like to repeat clause 4. This is how it will read now: “That given Bill C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050, has been referred to the committee, the committee hold six meetings regarding the bill, three with witnesses and three for clause-by-clause, that all the meetings be scheduled for three hours each, and that up to three meetings be scheduled the week of May 17 and up to three meetings be scheduled the week of May 24.”

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to the order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at second reading of Bill C-12.

Call in the members.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

The House resumed from May 3, consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Finance

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, maybe the best place to start is where we left off with the last speaker. Although I admired his quip about the PMO handing me documents, I will assure the member that I have three extremely capable, young, energetic staffers who do the vast majority of my research. Since I am singling them out, I am going to name them: Parth, Kaitlin and Kelly. They are absolutely incredible, and they do amazing work for me. They are the ones who quite often bring these very important pieces of information forward that I can use in debate. I am extremely lucky to have those incredible young Canadians working for me.

To the member's point about fact checking, let us fact check. I will admit I was younger at the time and not as engaged in politics as I am now; however, my understanding is that Paul Martin and Ken Dryden had worked out a deal with all the provinces. That is kind of required in these constitutional things. I know the member completely disregarded that with the pharmacare private member's bill he brought in. Of course, he does not see the need to work with our partners, especially the ones we are constitutionally required to work with.

Nonetheless, Ken Dryden and Paul Martin worked with the provinces and finally got the infrastructure or the programming structure set up so that national child care could be brought into Canada. This is where the budget part comes into it. This member, with the Conservatives, teamed up against Paul Martin and Ken Dryden and took down the government. That is why we do not have national child care. That is the reality of the situation. He should really go and do some fact checking on that, although I assume that he would have known, given that he was here at the time. However, who am I? I was only 29 at the time, and perhaps not paying as much attention as I should have been.

I really look forward to using the remaining 18 minutes of my time to talk about this very important concurrence motion that was introduced by the member for Carleton. He brought in the concurrence motion on the report from the finance committee. It is a very important report, with 145 recommendations in total, outlining the budget consultation process and what the government should be focusing on as it looks toward the budgeting process.

I know the previous speaker said he was very disappointed that the budget seemed to miss the mark on a number of different initiatives brought forward during the time of the consultation. He went to great lengths to explain how the consultation is done.

I would like to highlight some of the recommendations within the report that I thought were very good. Some made it into the budget and will have a meaningful impact on, and beneficial changes for, the lives of Canadians. There are a number of different sections to the recommendations. I will start in the section on health care.

One of the recommendations there, specifically with regard to mental health, was extremely important. We are living in a day and age when mental health is finally being recognized as the health problem that it is. I find it very frustrating that we have always been able to focus on the health issues that affect people's physical well being, and are very quick and responsive to invest money there, but we are not as good when it comes to mental health. I say that as a society. Certainly, there is always more that could be done.

A number of years ago the government brought in big stimulus for research and for helping to give people with mental health issues the supports they need. There is always going to be so much more work to be done, and I am glad to see that the committee came to that conclusion, based on research and recommendations given by various stakeholders throughout the process.

The other item in the health care section that I really liked seeing, and is something that has been talked about a lot in this House lately, was the request for long-term care national standards. What we have realized during this pandemic is that we have failed Canadians. Again, I do not say this as one particular party or another; I just mean society as a whole. We failed our seniors. We did not set up the right systems in order to protect them at a time when they would need it the most. The responsibility for this needs to be shared by everybody, by society as a whole, and we need to do better. If there is anything we have learned from this pandemic, it is that we have an opportunity to do better when it comes to long-term care standards and we need to act on that.

I know there are some members of this House who are very concerned about national standards for long-term care, including my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois. However, I really think that this does not have to be a top-down approach, as they are suggesting it is. It can actually be an opportunity to share best practices, to develop standards that can then be used throughout the country as provinces see fit.

I have said this many times and I will say it again: I compare it to something like our National Building Code. A lot of people probably do not even realize that there is a National Building Code in Canada because provincial jurisdictions use the building code. At least people who live in Ontario or Quebec may not realize that the National Building Code exists because Ontario and Quebec have their own building codes. The rest of the country pretty much uses those national standards. When we think of a building code, we think of the best practices that are put in there. If we compare the National Building Code to Ontario's Building Code, with which I am more familiar than I am with the Quebec one, we will see that the two are almost identical because Ontario is getting its best practices from the national code and I am sure that the national code is also influenced heavily by Ontario's Building Code and Quebec's Construction Code.

Therefore, I look at this as an opportunity to do something very similar as it relates to national long-term care standards. It is to develop some standards, not to impose them and force them upon provinces but to set the standards so that they can be adopted as best practices where provinces see fit.

One of the other sections that I enjoyed seeing in this report was the section on children and families in particular, and talking about a national child care system. Members heard me speak about this at the beginning of my speech and in the questions I was asking for the previous speaker. It is long overdue. I know there is a tendency to say, “What about this? What about that?” The Liberals have been promising it since the early 1990s when I was still in high school. I do not know what the situation is and why this happened, other than what I have been referencing around the Paul Martin time, but, as a parent who has children who have gone through nursery school and day care, I see so many parents out there, more often women, who do not put their kids into day care or child care because it just does not make economic sense. One of the parents, more often than not the woman, ends up staying home and she does not have the opportunity to realize her full potential in the marketplace.

When I talk about child care, it is not just about taking care of children in day care and giving the parents a break; this is about unleashing an economic opportunity here. Imagine what it would mean to put so many more people into the workforce and what that would mean for our economy. If one does not care about the social impact of child care, one should at least consider the economic impact of it. It has the opportunity to unleash new people working in our marketplace, which is only good for the growth of our economy.

I also note that there was a recommendation with respect to domestic abuse victim supports. I liked seeing that. There will never be enough that we can do to support victims of domestic abuse.

When I was younger, in high school in the early nineties, as I alluded to earlier, my mother worked at the Kingston Interval House, which was a special house to support more often than not women who were subject to domestic abuse and give them the support they needed right then and there to help them. To know the committee has heard from people in our country who are advocating for this is important. As we move forward I hope we will see more supports being put into this particular initiative of protecting and giving supports to those who have been subject to domestic abuse.

Another section I found very interesting when I was reading through the report was on employment and labour. There was a recommendation to fund Statistics Canada to make sure it had the funding it needed to do its job. My predecessor Ted Hsu introduced a private member's bill on this particular topic about reinstating the long-form census. Nothing is more important to government, agencies and businesses for that matter than good data. Getting that data and making sure Statistics Canada can compile that data in order for organizations, businesses and government to utilize is truly important for our economy and the social fabric of our communities.

There were also, in the employment and labour section, recommendations on supporting and developing training for green jobs. I talked about this earlier when we were discussing Bill C-12. The opportunity here of Canada being at the forefront of those green jobs and allowing Canadians to really expand their skills as these new industries are created in our economy is truly important, but we need to make sure people, and particular workers, have the skills they need for these jobs.

Along those lines, I know in the education and training section of the report there were also recommendations on investing in young Canadians for skills training specifically. I do not know if anybody has tried to hire a plumber or an electrician lately, but they are not easy to get and can pretty much charge whatever they want.

I come from this generation where my parents are immigrants from Italy and Holland who came here very young. They saw the struggles their parents went through, and the only thing their parents wanted was for their children to be lawyers, doctors and teachers, or “professionals”. That gets passed down to the next generation, and unfortunately, in the process of doing that, we have somehow devalued the core skills of those really important jobs. We made a giant mistake in doing that, as a society, when I say “we”.

To put resources into making sure that skills training can continue and people can get trained for those skilled trades jobs in particular truly is important in this day and age. If any of my three children come to me and say they want to get into a skilled trade, I will be beside myself and excited by this because I know they will be set for life and will be making money taking care of everybody else's problems for years to come.

There was also a lot in the report about arts, culture and hospitality. I come from a riding that really needs a lot of supports right now. About 11% or 12% of the economy in Kingston specifically is in tourism. These industries are struggling right now. We have a number of museums in Kingston, which make up the tour in Kingston, that literally have been sitting empty for a year, and these museums and cultural amenities that exist throughout the country really need the supports to get through this particular time so we can still have those cultural assets when we get through this pandemic. I was really happy to see that recommendation in there.

Perhaps the part of the recommendations I liked the most were the last five recommendations of the report, which focus on electric vehicles. I think there is such a huge opportunity here, as we discover that we will transition to electrified vehicles. There is no stopping that. It is going to happen. I genuinely believe we have passed the tipping point. It is really going to take off, and it will do so at a much more increased pace than it is now.

I heard a member from British Columbia, I believe it was one of the Green Party members, indicate that B.C. is now selling approximately 10% of its vehicles as electric vehicles. This industry is really going to take off, so putting investments and incentives into research and development, which is what one of the recommendations calls for, makes me wonder about what that will lead to.

When NASA does research to build new things for space, quite often we get a ton of spinoffs that end up becoming new products, which become available for more residential and commercial uses. Therefore, the spinoffs that will come from research and development in electrifying vehicles, for example, will be tremendous.

I also think there is a huge opportunity here. We are starting to see electric vehicles get to the end of their lifespan, as some have been around for a good 10 or 15 years now, and there is an opportunity to do a lot of research and development in what to do with an electric vehicle when it gets to the end of its life. I think there is a huge opportunity here, and I am really glad to see that was in one of the recommendations of this concurrence report.

Of course, there was also another recommendation in that same section on incentivizing the purchase of electric vehicles. I think it is extremely important to do that, but I know there are a lot of people out there who criticize the incentivization of electric vehicles.

I will be the first to admit that I have taken advantage of those incentives in Ontario on a number of occasions. We are on our fourth electric vehicle. People who are overly critical of these incentives are being very short-sighted on how much we actually help the fossil fuel industry in Canada, in particular with the incentives that are out there and the credits that are being applied to the fossil fuel industry.

Of course, there was another recommendation to increase the electrification of the federal government fleet dramatically. That is something I am very encouraged to see. It is another great recommendation, which I think the government should act on. We need to be leaders. If we are going to convince other people to buy an electric vehicle, the government needs to introduce a lot of electric vehicles into its own fleet.

I made a comment earlier about electric vehicles being an industry that is evolving. I can tell members that our first electric vehicle we had was a Chevy Volt. We could get 40 kilometres after plugging it in, and then we were using gas after that. We now have a Chrysler Pacifica, which is a minivan. We get about 60km and then use gas.

Then we have a Hyundai Kona, which I get about 400 kilometres on and which I drive to and from Ottawa. To see the evolution, just from my own limited experience of how these vehicles have changed in such a short period of eight or nine years, is truly inspiring. I know it is only a matter of time before they are flooding the market and everybody will be driving electric vehicles.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, right before we started the debate to concur in the report from the finance committee, we spent most of the day today debating the government's bill, Bill C-12. I think there is widespread agreement that the bill needs some strengthening at committee.

I specifically notice recommendation 66 of this report to increase serious investments in infrastructure for fighting climate change. That is a very worthy initiative, and I do not think we will find any disagreement on that. However, what does the member think when we see a recommendation like that but then contrast it with the fact that the Liberals spent billions of our taxpayer dollars on buying a bitumen exporting pipeline? Of course, they are now spending billions more trying to upgrade its capacity. We are all being warned that this is the most serious decade for us to get real climate change action coming from the government.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments on the actual infrastructure spending that is going on versus what is being recommended in the finance committee's report.