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.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

[Derek Sloan, Independent, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to draw some attention to the enormity of the targets we are talking about here. Since 2005, we have only decreased our emissions by about 1% when we look at 2019. The Prime Minister has recently agreed to reduce them by an additional 45%. We have had carbon taxes in Ontario, where there is the Green Energy Act that increased the cost of electricity by $37 billion for Ontario citizens.

Some experts have said that COVID has likely only reduced our emissions by about 7%. I do not know how we are going to meet 45% and I surely do not know how we are going to get to net zero without destroying our economy.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would reiterate that Bill C-12 purports to set targets and to be aggressive, but it is not really that at all. It misses the target in many ways. The accountability section is almost meaningless; it is without teeth.

A Conservative government would take meeting our targets very seriously and we would do so without killing jobs and without phasing out of our energy resource industries. We recognize that it is an important part of our economy and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Richmond Hill.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually in the House today to speak on Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act.

Bill C-12 emphasizes the action needed to meet our goals toward fighting climate change and reducing our carbon footprint.

For years, our youth have been calling for action. Advocates alike have been demanding targets and concrete change. We have had rallies for decades, and scientists and experts alike have warned of the damage to come should we not act.

The bill is comprised of five themes: accountability, transparency, target measures, monitoring and holding all governments, current and future, accountable. Specifically, the proposed bill will require tabling and publicizing targets, plans, progress reports and assessment reports. We need robust parliamentary accountability mechanisms to fulfill our commitment to be transparent to the public, to set and achieve target measures, monitor progress and, last, ensure that this government and future governments alike remain accountable to every principle in the bill.

On that note, in December 2015, Canada joined 194 parties in signing the Paris agreement, a historic agreement that would be the start of the commitment to address climate change. That agreement aimed to limit the global temperature increase to well below 2°C above the pre-industrial level and to pursue efforts to limit our temperature increase to 1.5°C. Since 2015, our government has been working hard to achieve this goal, listening to the advice of scientists and experts. This momentum of remaining accountable must continue. Bill C-12 would require a target and establish an emissions reduction plan to be put in place, both to be tabled in Parliament within six months of the coming into force of this act.

Furthermore, the bill would set a legally binding process for the federal government to set climate targets and bring forward an ambitious climate plan every five years between 2030 and 2050. This would mean that a 2030 progress report must be tabled before the end of 2027, and a 2030 assessment report to be tabled within 30 days of the 2030 national inventory report data.

In addition, an annual report detailing how the federal government is managing the financial risk of climate change and the opportunities must be conducted and tabled in Parliament.

Finally, a review by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development within five years of coming into force of this act must be conducted.

The dates are aligned with the very structure of the Paris agreement based on 2030, as are plans in provinces like B.C. and Quebec and those around the world.

To promote transparency as well as accountability in relation to meeting those targets, the enactment also requires that the several reports mentioned above to be tabled and published to the public. Canadians deserve to know the targets being set, our plan to meet these targets and our progress along the way. Importantly, having a Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development providing an analysis of the government's plan at least once every five years adds additional scrutiny and transparency. This is yet another example of how we plan to be transparent to Canadians.

Our government believes in science and evidence-based research, and we will continue to include science and research in every step. That is why an advisory body composed of up to 15 experts will be established to provide the Minister of Environment and Climate Change advice with respect to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

This advisory body will engage with experts, stakeholders, indigenous people and the public to ensure that its advice is grounded in the priorities and ideas of all Canadians. The advisory body will submit an annual report to the minister of the environment with respect to its advice and activities. The creation of an advisory board is consistent with other actions taken by our peer countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, New Zealand and France.

This bill aims to hold the federal government to its commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and to exceed our 2030 Paris target.

On Earth Day, the Prime Minister announced at the Earth Summit a commitment to cut emissions by 40 to 45% by 2030. It is an ambitious goal that I am sure we can achieve, if done right with co-operation on all fronts. This is why Bill C-12 is so important.

Let me reiterate that prior to 2030, the target measures entail the following: Within six months of the act coming into force, the 2030 milestone target and tabling the 2030 milestone plan would be set; before the end of 2027, a 2030 progress report would be completed and tabled; and within 30 days of all 2030 national inventory report data, there would be a 2030 assessment report.

Post-2030, the target measures would entail the following: At least five years before each milestone year of 2035, 2040 and 2045, the milestone must be set; two years prior to each milestone year, preparations for a progress report for the milestone year would commence; and within 30 days of national inventory report data for each milestone year, preparation of an assessment report for the milestone would be under way. Last but not least, there would also be targets associated with the Environment Commissioner, and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development must, at least once every five years, examine and report on the Government of Canada's implementation of the measures aimed at mitigating climate change, including those undertaken to achieve its most recent greenhouse gas emissions target as identified in the relevant assessment report.

Everything that I have outlined is necessary to monitoring our progress and reaching the benchmarks that will be set for each target milestone. It is crucial that we set up mechanisms to fully monitor our progress, and that is why this advisory board is crucial.

Again, it is crucial that we act. Countries around the world are accelerating their transition to a net-zero economy and Canada cannot fall behind. It is crucial that we set targets and make every effort to meet them. Net zero is not just a plan for a healthier environment: It is a plan to build a cleaner, more competitive economy. I encourage my colleagues from all parties to support this bill. We must work together to ensure that we collectively reduce our emissions. We need to act to ensure that the momentum of this progress continues well after this Parliament. This is exactly what this bill intends, and this is exactly what we plan to do.

As the representative of the beautiful riding of Richmond Hill, I am proud to support this bill that members of my environmental community council have been strong advocates of. This bill is an opportunity to move toward a greener and cleaner environment and economy. This is why there are several key initiatives, 43 different measures, in budget 2021 that will not only help us achieve this target but move Canadians to innovation in clean and green technology.

In closing, Bill C-12 is a bill for Canada and a bill for Canadians. Once again it is a promise made and a promise kept for a greener and cleaner economy and environment.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, we need a climate change bill, and a promise is a promise. However, there is a flaw in this bill that has to be fixed. The bill may tell us that certain actions must be taken, but it does not tell us what targets must be achieved by 2025 or 2030. Regardless, we already know Canada will not hit its targets.

What concrete steps does my colleague intend to take to ensure that this bill contains not only targets, but also measures that will enable us to meet those targets?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the concrete actions we are taking are the 43 measures that have been highlighted in budget 2021. I strongly suggest that the member look through budget.gc.ca, as I am sure she has, to look at those measures.

I would also like to say that the Liberal government has already invested over $60 billion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help Canadians adapt to the changing climate. Those are all concrete actions, from putting a price on pollution to planning to plant two billion trees, making investments in electric vehicles, making investments in retrofits, making investments in clean energy—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on my Bloc colleague's question. It is great to talk about what one is going to do and great to talk about the investments, yet with the problem we are trying to solve and the actions the Liberal government has taken, there does not seem to be any connection between achieving results and what it has done.

Could the member please give us an idea of how the measures the Liberal government has put in place are actually achieving real targets?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the achievement is quite clear. We have put measures in and have introduced a price on pollution, especially a price on carbon. That policy has been rolled out and is already resulting in many Canadians having the opportunity to use the money being transferred to them as part of the reimbursement to invest in green retrofits for their homes. Actually, I used that retrofit to change some of my light bulbs to LED light bulbs and to change my thermostat, which helps with the greening of my house and also helps improve the efficiency of my house.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-12 illustrates quite clearly why the committee stage is such an important part of the legislative process. Bill C-12 is a good start, but like any first draft, it does need some revisions.

Would the member agree that when this bill gets to committee, there should be some strengthening in the language around putting in a real target for the year 2025 but also making sure the proposed advisory committee has a very specific role in setting targets and reviewing the kinds of assessments we are putting in place for all of this? Would he agree those two specific areas need strengthening in this bill at committee stage?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is why we have the process we do for the review of bills. Bills go to committee so we are able to hear from various witnesses. As I said in my speech, our government is committed to making sure the decisions we are making are evidence-based and based on research, science and fact. I look forward to receiving those facts, as well as receiving input from other members in the House and in the committee to make sure the bill we are putting forward is strong.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is once again an honour to rise in this place to debate another piece of legislation.

We are debating Bill C-12, which is one of the bills I have heard a significant amount of feedback on from constituents. Over the course of the next 10 minutes or so, I hope to be able to outline some of the specifics of what this bill is and is not, and to dispel some of the myths that the members opposite, especially, like to propagate, both about their so-called environmental plan and how they attempt to label Conservatives.

I plan to talk with great pride about some of the work being done within my constituency and the industries that I am proud to represent, and how some of my constituents are leading the way on ensuring that we have a strong environment for today and in the future.

First, I want to dispel some myths. I find it interesting that the members opposite will talk at length about how Conservatives somehow hate the environment, about how Conservatives refuse to take action, about Conservatives this and Conservatives that, yet as with so many aspects of what the government talks about, the talking points do not reflect reality.

If I had more time, I would highlight some of the significant achievements of past Conservative governments, but also the ways that Conservatives stand up for the environment. I can certainly speak to the fact that Alberta is a place that over the last half a century, except for four unfortunate years of Socialist intervention, has had largely Conservative governments and has led the way in ensuring both emissions reductions and environmental plans that have really created a framework for ensuring a strong environment for today and for future generations.

Quite often the Liberals will take a piece of a policy, yet forget the big picture. They will criticize the Conservatives for something, simply saying, “Oh, well, it is because Harper was so evil, and therefore Conservatives must hate everything to do with the environment and all of that.” It could not be further from the truth. One of the most telling aspects of the Liberals' narrative of trying to label Conservatives as somehow anti-environment is that, when they took over government, most of the targets and mandates were kept the same as the previous government had negotiated.

Somehow the Liberals think they own the narrative on the environment, when the reality could not be further from the truth. I am proud to represent 53,000 square kilometres of beautiful east central Alberta, where environmental stewardship has defined much of that region's legacy, and will continue to into the future.

I would just note that five generations of my family have worked the land in what is called Alberta's Special Areas. It is a testament to the stewardship of Albertans. “Special Areas” is a unique name in terms of a municipality, but let me give a quick history lesson. Back in the drought years of the 1930s, the government basically deemed that area unfit for habitation and was buying back land. My family was one of the few in the area to stick around. I would like to think that is where my family gets some of its tough nature from.

Over the last close to a century, we have seen the Special Areas go from being deemed almost unfit to becoming incredibly productive through successive generations of good agricultural practices and advancements in technology. The list goes on and on about the incredible advancements that ensured this region, which was largely misunderstood a century ago because of the challenges it faced during the drought, would have the strength it now does in terms of the environment. It leads as an example of good soil management, land management and agriculture.

We are truly the heart of the energy industry in Canada. I say this because in Hardisty, Alberta, billions of dollars of Canadian energy flow through the region. It is at the heart of the energy industry. Some incredible advancements in the environment have come about as a result of Canada's world-class oil and gas industry.

I note my time is quickly escaping. That happens when I talk with such pride about my constituency.

The hypocrisy of the Liberal agenda is highlighted so clearly in Bill C-12. Let me get into some of the specifics of that.

In laymen's terms, Bill C-12 is simply to bring forward a plan that will report on its plan and make changes if the plan does not go according to plan. I say that a bit facetiously, but that really is what Bill C-12 is about.

Further, there is a 15-member panel the minister plans to bring forward. It is interesting because all members of this House I think, certainly from the Conservative side, support a strong environment for our future, but we also believe that needs to go hand in hand with the economy, yet this panel has been pre-chosen by the minister opposite.

I would note some of the activism that defines the past, specifically I think of the minister of heritage who literally went to prison for breaking the law regarding environmental activism. That is the sort of agenda that in some cases is defining members who have been preselected, before Parliament has even passed this bill, to be on this 15-member panel that will present a plan to the plan that will evaluate the plan, and so on. It is rich that the government has said that somehow this will solve all the woes of the world, that it will accomplish its failures, when I know that, and this may surprise members opposite, the reality is this. Donald Trump had a better record for reducing emissions than the Prime Minister opposite. That may be surprising to some, but the numbers speak otherwise. The member opposite, specifically the Prime Minister, likes to contrast himself with the former president of the United States. That certainly is a contrast point, but I am not sure it is one the Prime Minister would be proud of, when Donald Trump has beaten his record on the environment and done so by a fairly substantial margin.

That highlights a few of the challenges I see with Bill C-12, the inconsistencies in the Liberal agenda and how the Liberals somehow think that, once again, punting something a bit further down the road releases them from accountability on this issue. I would suggest they have defined much of the conversation around it, but failed when it comes to actual action on the environment.

Let me get into a few examples of why I am proud to represent a region of the country that is really leading the world. I have talked a bit about energy. A few miles outside of the boundaries of Battle River—Crowfoot, in one of my neighbouring colleague's ridings, is an oil basin that a particular energy company works in and is able to produce net-zero oil. According to some of the most conservative estimates, energy demand is going to increase over the next couple of decades. Some estimates show it further than that. We are seeing a resurgence of demand, notably the price of oil has increased to much beyond pre-pandemic levels, and we are seeing demand for the actual volume of oil likely to surpass pre-pandemic levels at some point this year. Imagine net-zero oil. There should not be one member of this House who is opposed to the energy industry when we have demonstrated that we can, in the most environmental and ethical way, I would note, possible to ensure we have energy that can secure not only our country's future but the world's future.

We can look at biomass. I have a couple of biomass companies that are pioneering the way. We can secure carbon permanently from agricultural practices and building supplies, agricultural advancements that are absolutely incredible, such as carbon sequestration in the soil, and the list goes on.

There is a wide divide between what the Conservatives and the members opposite say on the environment, but I will say one thing. Canadians can count on the Conservatives to stand up for taking action on the environment, not just talk like the members opposite.

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

Madam Speaker, the member started off his speech today by talking about Conservatives not having the narrative on climate action and how somehow Conservatives are seen as those who do not take climate action seriously. I can tell the member that I have heard members of the Conservative party, who are sitting in this House right now, talk about climate change as though it is not something that is human-caused. Of the membership of this member's party, 54% have said they do not believe in climate action.

Does he agree with the 54% that climate change is not made by humans?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, once again it is spin that is misleading at best and unparliamentary language at worst. I find it interesting. I would ask the member—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, if a member is going to suggest I am using unparliamentary language, I would at least like to know what he is referring to, so I could address it and apologize for it, if that is the case.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member has a point. We do not use that lightly, so I would invite the member for Battle River—Crowfoot to explain to us what he meant.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, in response to the point of order, I find it interesting the member actually is bringing forward a point that has been litigated at length in the House regarding a motion that was brought forward regarding the—

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

What did I say that was unparliamentary?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. members will not start to debate, please. That is exactly the question that has to be answered.

What was unparliamentary in the member's question?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite referenced very specifically a motion that was brought forward at the Conservative Party convention. It was three paragraphs. He referenced six words of the beginning of that, and he knows full well, at least I hope he does, if he has actually read the motion that was brought forward—

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

Question of privilege.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member is not necessarily explaining what unparliamentary language was used by the member for Kingston and the Islands.

The hon member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a question of privilege.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question for my colleague is very simple. Does he believe climate change is a real threat?

It is true that we cannot eliminate oil completely, but does he not think it would be wise to reduce our reliance on oil and start switching to renewable energy sources?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, because I think here lies a significant question that all Canadians need to ask, whether from Quebec, Alberta, the Maritimes, the west coast or whatever the case may be, and that is where we get our oil while this transition takes place. Do we get it from jurisdictions that have very poor environmental standards, jurisdictions that have few or no ethical standards, or from a choice supplier that could be Alberta?

I think many Canadians would agree they would rather have oil and energy produced by a jurisdiction like Alberta versus foreign jurisdictions that do not have those same standards. I hope the member from the Bloc would support that sort of initiative, which is truly good for not just Albertans or Quebeckers, but all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's remarks. At one point he suggested that parties other than his claim to own the narrative around climate change, and I would argue the Conservatives have certainly owned a narrative around the issue, it is simply not the narrative that resonates with most Canadians.

The vote at second reading on Bill C-12 is a vote on the principle of holding the government to account on its climate targets. If the Conservative party votes against the bill at second reading, how is anyone to understand that as anything other than a vote against the principle of climate accountability?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the members opposite would be suggesting things that I am not sure are entirely within the scope of what is being debated here.

I look at Bill C-12 and I see many concerns. I have highlighted some of them and there are others that some of my colleagues have also done a great job at highlighting. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. Certainly, if this bill passes, a lot of questions will need to be asked and answered, hopefully along with changes made at committee.

Our job here in this House, the job of each and every member, is to represent our constituents. That is something that I will do each and every day to ensure that their voices are heard in this place.

The House resumed 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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 13 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Repentigny has the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a federal bill that paves the way for real government accountability in the fight against climate change is very urgently needed.

I would be shocked if there were still elected members in this 43rd Parliament who would deny that the climate crisis will affect the entire planet in this century if governments do not legislate appropriately.

We are already feeling the effects of climate change, as evidenced by the increase in such extreme weather events as floods, forest fires, heat waves and so on.

Bill C-12 must not be taken lightly, and the provisions that must be included in it will require painstaking work in order to secure the future of the next generations.

We are being asked to lay the foundation for the common good. Our work must be done in a spirit of collaboration and willingness to listen. Legislating climate accountability is probably the most important challenge of the 21st century.

After Bill C-12 was introduced, we were able to identify the problems with it and rightfully raise red flags. We also had the time to compare this bill to other countries' legislation, gather information, share research, consult experts and reflect on what amendments would be required for such a bill to emerge and, above all, what it would need to come to fruition.

First, Bill C-12 does not include mandatory reduction targets. Instead, it requires the minister to set the targets. Therefore it is false to say that Bill C-12 would force the government to take action that would meet greenhouse gas reduction targets. It is a bit difficult to follow. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie stated that his government was ready to set targets and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change stated that he could perhaps include them in the bill. This is a reason for studying the bill in committee. However, at present, there is nothing in the bill to that effect and it is crucial.

Furthermore, the bill does not require the minister to fulfill his commitments. It requires him to prepare a progress report. If Canada does not meet its target, which, again, is not identified in the current version of the bill, then the minister is asked to include in his report the reasons Canada did not meet its target. That is it. Federal government officials confirmed that the bill does not provide for any binding measures or penalties for failing to meet targets.

The Prime Minister of Canada's defence against this criticism is that it is up to the voters to penalize the government if it fails. He said:We live in a democracy, and ultimately it is up to Canadians to continue to choose governments that are serious about fighting climate change and that will be accountable to the public every five years.

Even though it is true that voters ultimately have the power to punish politicians, this statement primarily shows that the Prime Minister is opposed to making the greenhouse gas reduction targets binding. This means that he is opposed to requiring that Canada fulfill its international commitments, even though he just increased his targets in front of the many countries attending the U.S. President's summit.

The government cannot say that Bill C-12 contains restrictive measures while at the same time saying that the only real restriction is the election result. I remind the government that the climate crisis, the global risks associated with this crisis and its immeasurable consequences have nothing to do with election strategies. The government has a role and a responsibility as a legislator, and in my opinion, it is irresponsible and unconscionable for it to cheapen this legislation by shifting them to future governments.

In this version of Bill C-12, the action plan, the minister's reports and the method of calculating emissions are not subject to review by an independent authority. An essential component of this type of legislation depends on the diligent efforts of what Bill C-12 refers to as an advisory body. I mention this because Canada cannot achieve its ambitions or optimal progress on climate change until the government clarifies certain details about this body.

We will have to be vigilant with respect to the key aspects of this proposed advisory body. Its duties must be spelled out in the legislation, it must be composed of experts in relevant fields who have no conflicts of interest, and it must be completely independent. In our view, the people on this advisory body should not represent Canadians. There are 338 MPs in this place to do that. What we need are scientists.

Let us look at other countries with this type of body. In the United Kingdom, scientists represent 67% of the members; in France, 85%; in New Zealand, 33%; in Quebec, 75%; and in Canada, 7%.

Expert Corinne Le Quéré, who Quebec can be proud to count among those trained in its universities, has an incredible amount of experience preparing legislation combatting climate change.

She has spoken extensively about the absolute need to include specific targets in the act. There is no doubt that she has knowledge and advice to share regarding good governance because she contributed to the success of the U.K. climate change committee and she chairs France's high council on climate.

Corinne Le Quéré, the scientific community and environmental groups agree on the following essential elements: The committee's mandate and powers must be set out in the act; the act must specify that the committee must have access to all of the climate-related scientific knowledge, including indigenous knowledge; the committee must be properly funded; the committee must be able to provide its expertise in an independent manner, whether of its own initiative or at the request of parliamentarians; and the committee must be officially involved in establishing greenhouse gas reduction targets, monitoring progress and preparing related reports.

The hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change has repeatedly stated that he is open to working with opposition parties to improve Bill C-12. As we know, people are becoming more and more aware of how the decisions we are making now will affect the future of the planet.

The Bloc Québécois has taken a firm stance on environmental issues in Canada, and we want to collaborate on this bill because, as we all know, this is a whole-of-government issue that transcends borders.

The only way we can achieve any progress is by viewing the climate crisis through that lens. Still, there are undeniable facts we must face. The first is that the clock is ticking. We have to get to net zero as fast as we can, before 2050 if possible. If we acknowledge that premise, this climate change act has to include all the right tools to ensure we get there as fast as possible.

We are calling on the government to be ambitious and courageous enough to put an end to the cycle that has resulted in Canada consistently missing its targets and failing to achieve its goals in recent decades.

The international community expects better. Lord Deben, chairman of the UK Committee on Climate Change, explained to the parliamentarians present at the preparatory meeting for COP 26, which I attended, that Canada must fully grasp how its behaviour and climate inaction affect other countries around the world and realize that every country counts. He concluded with some words of wisdom: Humankind has not learned to live with respect for biodiversity, the environment and the health of our oceans. Humanity's very existence is weakened by what could happen in the future, and that is why we must fully grasp what is happening and avoid repeating the mistakes that brought us to where we are now.

We must protect biodiversity and preserve natural habitats for future generations. The areas that are supposedly protected by federal legislation must be truly protected. They must not be compromised, as when the government authorizes drilling off the coast of Newfoundland to cater to the oil industry.

I do not want the shores of the St. Lawrence River to erode or Quebec's native wildlife to disappear. I do not want to hear that thousands of people are dying because of pollution. Health Canada estimates that 15,300 premature deaths per year in Canada can be linked to pollution. I no longer want to witness the despair of people around the globe who are overwhelmed by the effects of our inaction. If their habitats are destroyed, they are forced to leave their islands and their homes, becoming climate refugees, while the sums promised by rich countries to help them adapt fall short of what is needed to address the real climate catastrophes.

Now is the time to get our priorities straight. Together we can still change the trajectory. Never before have we been in a situation where the earth is warming so fast, with the global temperature expected to rise by two degrees centigrade by 2043, which is not far off. We are running out of time, and small steps are no longer good enough. We need to take a giant leap forward.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.

Bill C-12 would do nothing more than create a committee and make recommendations to the government for coming up with a plan. In other words, the Liberals currently do not have a plan. What does the member think about that?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

In my opinion, the government has a plan, but it lacks long-term vision. It presented 45 or 48 recommendations shortly before Christmas. However, there was nothing binding. We are at the point where we need binding measures if we want to meet our climate targets.

The problem is not the belugas in the St. Lawrence or the polar bears. The problem has to do with our children since they are the ones who will pay for all of our negligence of the past few decades and for our current negligence.

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

Mr. Speaker, like the member, I also hold out great hope for the work the environment committee has to do on this bill. There are some significant improvements that need to be made to the wording.

I want to ask the member about the importance of following up these words with action. We have a Liberal government that invested billions of our public dollars into purchasing a pipeline and is right now trying to increase its exporting capacity. I would like to hear the member's comments about where that money could have gone, and about the importance of starting a just transition for energy workers in provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan to those transferable skills we need for the renewable energy economy of the future.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I will make a comparison. The budget includes a $17.6-billion investment for the transition to a green economy, but there was also a $17.1-billion investment in a pipeline, with more to come. This means that the amount allocated to the green economic recovery for all of Canada is only slightly higher than the cost of the pipeline.

My leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, has already said that he was willing for the pipeline money to be invested in Alberta so that workers could receive training or switch careers.

We already know about different energy sources that are within reach. Whether it is solar, wind or geothermal energy, they are all ready to go. We do not even have to do any research, we just have to get on board.

When my leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, made his remarks, he was standing in solidarity with the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

We have worked together at some conferences of the parties, including the one on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

She raised some really good points about other countries, their legislation and their advisory bodies. However, she did not mention the United Kingdom, which has an advisory body entirely made up of experts and scientists.

Why does she think the government introduced such a weak bill like Bill C-12 when we have such strong examples?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, with whom I have worked many times.

Bill C-12 was very weak. It was not what we expected, given the climate crisis we are currently experiencing. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change is open to amendments. The Bloc Québécois is prepared to propose a number of amendments to make the bill binding and ensure that we can meet our targets.

As I said in my speech, this is not about belugas and polar bears. This is about our children and grandchildren.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Western Economic Diversification Canada) and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (Canada Water Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. This bill fulfills an important commitment made by the government to put in place legally binding requirements for this government, and future governments, to set climate targets and publish plans to meet those targets in consultation with the public and interested stakeholders.

It includes important transparency and accountability mechanisms, including the requirement to publish milestone plans to achieve the targets we set, progress reports to assess whether we are on track to meet our targets, and assessment reports to determine whether targets have been met. If a target is not met, the minister must outline the reasons Canada failed to meet its target and give a description of actions the government will take to meet the target, as well as any other information the minister deems appropriate.

Bill C-12 also includes a role for the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, requiring the commissioner to examine and report on the government’s implementation of measures to mitigate climate change every five years.

Our government recognizes that we are faced with a climate emergency and we must act now. The overwhelming evidence behind climate change compels us to take action. That is why in December we released our strengthened climate plan, which contains over 64 measures and $15 billion in investments. Recently, budget 2021 included additional measures that will enable us to go even further, reflecting the government’s ambition and the seriousness of the challenge before us.

Science is the foundation of the Government of Canada’s action on climate change. We ended the war on science when a Liberal government was elected in 2015. Our government relies on evidence-based policy-making and depends on our scientists to provide information that helps us protect the environment. Canada has a strong science and knowledge base to draw on. This scientific foundation not only enables targeted action, but also allows us to evaluate the effectiveness of our actions and to adjust as needed.

Climate change is a global issue, and we cannot tackle it alone. That is why governments around the world rely on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a valuable, credible and independent source of scientific information, to inform their actions on climate change.

The IPCC “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C”, released in fall 2018, tells us that limiting future warming to 1.5°C instead of 2°C would reduce the negative impacts of climate change and allow most terrestrial and marine species to keep up with the pace of climate change, preserve coral reefs, increase the chance of keeping sea level rise below one metre this century, allow some Arctic sea ice to remain in the summer and allow more scope for adaptation, particularly in the agricultural sector.

The objective of the ECCC-led “Canada’s Changing Climate Report”, released in 2019, was to understand how and why Canada’s climate is changing and will continue to change in the future. This report is a comprehensive science assessment to help Canadians and policy-makers understand Canada’s changing climate so we can strengthen our resilience to climate change through adaptation and mitigation actions. The assessment confirms Canada’s climate has warmed mainly in response to global emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity. The effects of widespread warming are already evident in many parts of Canada and are projected to intensify in the near future.

The following conclusions, based on the report’s headline statements, tell a story about Canada’s changing climate. Canada’s climate has warmed and will warm further in the future, driven by human activity, and this warming is effectively irreversible. Both past and future warming in Canada is, on average, about double the magnitude of global average temperature increases. Changing temperature and precipitation, and changes in snow and ice, have important implications for freshwater supply, and the seasonal availability of fresh water is changing with an increased risk of water supply shortages in summer. A warmer climate will intensify weather extremes in the future: extreme hot temperatures will become more frequent and more intense, which will increase the severity of heat waves; there will be increased drought and wildfire risks, since projected increases in precipitation are not sufficient to offset the effects of projected warming; and the projected increase in heavy precipitation, a main cause of urban and rural floods, will increase future flood risks that are now costing us billions. We have seen those kinds of floods up close and personal in my home province of Manitoba.

Achieving a future with limited warming requires Canada and the rest of the world to reduce emissions to net zero around mid-century. This is why we are embarking on a pathway of rapid emission reductions. We recently announced an ambitious target of 40% to 45% reductions by 2030, putting us on a path to net zero by 2050.

The science is clear that urgent action to reduce greenhouse gases is needed if this future, which is consistent with achieving the long-term temperature goals of the Paris agreement, is to be achieved. The evolving science continues to support an increased need for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Climate action must continue in parallel with research efforts, drawing on existing knowledge and incorporating new insights as they become available.

The cycle of setting targets, establishing reduction plans and reporting on progress set out in the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act provides key opportunities for state-of-the-science information to be integrated into the government’s efforts to achieve net zero by 2050.

I hope all members in the House will join the government in recognizing the urgency of climate change and support sending this important legislation to committee. The government has expressed its willingness to consider constructive amendments and hopes to work with all parties to strengthen and pass the legislation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it fascinating to hear the Liberals talk about their commitments and their environmental convictions.

In 2017, this Liberal government established new manufacturing standards for insulation boards that contained a highly polluting foaming agent. Companies that manufacture these boards, including Soprema, near Drummondville, in my riding, had four years, or until January 1, 2021, to comply with the new regulations.

However, for so-called economic reasons, this same government decided to grant exemptions to multinational companies, even though they already possessed the required technology, as the government knew full well. Could the member tell me how anyone can believe this government and trust it on environmental matters, when it does not even honour its own commitments or enforce its own industry standards?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we did make commitments in the 2015 election platform that we would put a price on pollution and proceed down this path to getting a handle on our emissions. Indeed, we saw in the budget $17.6 billion to help create a more clean and sustainable future, including major investments in retrofits and other housing needs. Therefore, we are addressing the housing issue from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said that the Liberals were open to considering some amendments at committee. Opposition members would like to see just what kind of considerations the Liberals are concerned about here. We have already been public about the need for a 2025 milestone target, about clearer and stronger accountability on progress reporting, the assessment reporting, emissions reduction planning. We would also like to see the environment commissioner strengthened and made an independent officer.

Could the parliamentary secretary give us some feedback on those specific proposals and whether the Liberals will support those amendments at committee?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, although I wish I could, I am not a member of the environment committee, but I know there are people of good will and of intelligence on the committee. They produced the CEPA report unanimously in the last Parliament. I am sure they will come to a consensus on some of the issues the hon. member has mentioned. I do detect the hon. member supports the spirit of the bill, and we look forward to a good discussion at the environment committee.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything in Bill C-12 that is concrete action to advance us toward the targets. I know the Liberals are not on track to meet even the 2030 targets. Could the member tell me what in the bill is evidence of a plan that would actually meet net zero by 2050?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I served with the hon. member on the status of women committee and enjoyed her able chairwomanship.

The reality is that we have not had hard targets previously. We have not had accountability legislation. That is entirely new. We intend to be very accountable. Unfortunately we never saw that from the Stephen Harper government. It cancelled Kyoto, conducted a very active war on science and, as we know, there are doubts in the Conservative party about the reality of climate change.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-12. We have had quite a lively debate today.

If we talk about this net zero by 2050 target and we look at the bill to see what it would actually do, we see it is a typical smoke-and-mirrors Liberal bill that does not have any substance to it. It essentially would put together a committee of liberal-leaning anti-oil and gas folks, who, by the way, have already been selected before Parliament even has had a chance to debate this legislation and amend it. That shows a real disrespect for the parliamentary process, and it is not a surprise because we see that continually from the Liberals. However, we have to wait until we have thorough debate here before moving on.

We are looking at a committee that will advise the government on a plan to get to net zero by 2050. Does this not imply that the Liberals do not have a plan right now? This is what that says. They have a whole department of climate change scientists and they have not achieved the 2030 targets. They have not made progress toward that. Emissions were at 730 megatonnes. They are still at 730 megatonnes now, and that is from 2005 to now.

Therefore, I do not see anything in the bill that really has the teeth to reach the goal of net zero, and not surprisingly. The Liberals did not meet the 2030 targets, as I mentioned. It is ridiculous that the Prime Minister has proposed even more stringent 2030 targets when he will not even meet the already committed to targets by Stephen Harper.

If I look at the plans that the Liberals have already outlined, they have not really made a lot of progress. The government was going to plant two billion trees. How is that going? Have any been planted? If the government cannot even plant trees, how can it get the rest of this done?

With my time, I will talk a bit about what ought to be done. It is not just my role as the opposition to criticize; it is my opposition duty to say what would be better.

First, when it comes to net zero, there is a lot of rhetoric in the House that the Liberals are science based. If they were science based, then the definition of net zero should be that which is emitted minus that which is absorbed. I already alluded to the amount that is emitted, which is 730 megatonnes for Canada. Then if we look at the things that are absorbed, we would look at the different ways carbon dioxide, for example, is absorbed. Land mass is one way that carbon dioxide is absorbed. Canada has a huge land mass. Water is another way that carbon dioxide is absorbed, and we have a huge water mass in Canada. Forest and agricultural plants are all taking carbon dioxide out of the air, so they should be counted as well. However, on the government website, these things are not counted.

When looking at forests, they are counting all the emissions that come from forest fires and all the emissions that come from processing trees into furniture and downstream things, but they give no credit for all the carbon dioxide that is being sucked out of the air, so that is a problem. It is the same on the agriculture side. We are talking about a substantial amount of absorption.

A 2014 report of the global carbon project stated that 37% of emissions were absorbed by land, the combination of soil, forest and agriculture, and 27% were absorbed by water. If we apply that to our 730 megatonnes of emissions, that would leave 263 megatonnes that we need to find a plan to reduce to actually achieve net zero from a science point of view.

How can we do that? A number of technologies are out there, including carbon sequestration and carbon sinks, for example, and we know projects are on the books to help address that. Those would take care of, arguably, 20 to 30 megatonnes, so that will not take it the whole way. The Conservatives have come up with a plan that actually would meet our 2030 targets and would put us in a very good path to meet net zero by 2050.

If we look at what has been successful in the world, and I know people did not like the last administration to the south, but sadly, it was one of the few countries that actually met the targets that were agreed upon. How was it done? It was not done with committees and rhetoric. The targets were met by incentivizing emissions reduction technology to be put in place in the major industrial emitters. That is an area that Canada should focus on. There is a substantial amount of that 263 megatonnes we need to find that we could find if we incentivized our major industrial emitters.

We also know that transportation emissions are a substantial portion. Our plan outlines how we would get those reduced. There is a number of good ideas there. In terms of building emissions, we know that is another source. The greening of buildings and the implementation of clean technology is key. However, we have more.

We can think about some of the great technologies, such as nuclear. There are these portable 30 and 50 megawatt nuclear stations that could replace diesel in the north and even beyond that. They could be leveraged to those places in the world that are on coal and other things. This is a great Canadian technology, which we should be putting in place to help here at home and then further away. Of course, going to lower carbon intensity fuels is another great idea.

Our Conservative plan has been verified by a reputable third party organization to actually meet the targets. That is important because targets without plans are dreams. That is what the Liberal government has right now. It has dreams and a lot of rhetoric, but it is not actually making tracks and making progress towards even achieving the 2030 targets, let alone the net-zero targets that have been suggested.

Our plan has been very well received by all of the experts out there. I am going to read some of the quotes. The principal economist for the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices said, “The Conservative plan is credible.”

Nic Rivers, associate professor for the University of Ottawa and the Canada research chair in climate and energy policy, wrote, “Overall, I'm impressed. I don't like everything in this plan, but it's a serious plan (with some details missing), and I'm really happy to see competition for stronger environmental policy, rather than weaker. Modeling shows approach meets target.”

Dale Beugin, VP of research and analysis at the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices, said, “First, credit where credit is due for a serious plan. They've used modelling to ensure no magical thinking. They're relying on policies that will drive real emissions reductions. They are taking climate policy seriously.”

It is clear, from all of the people who have shown their support for the Conservative plan, that we are on the right track. That is not to say there is not more to be done. I am not opposed to planting trees. Trees are a carbon sink, but they have to be planted. One cannot just plan to plant them.

When we look at Bill C-12, I do not really see anything in here other than reporting mechanisms. There are targets but, again, they do not come with any teeth or any idea about how we would meet those targets.

I would encourage, when this bill goes to committee, the committee members take a look at exactly what needs to be put into this bill so that the tactics are clear for how we are going to get to net-zero emissions, and that they would actually amend the definition so that it would make sense. The way it is today, the Liberals are not counting everything that is absorbed and that will be important to the formula.

I think it is clear that I will not be supporting Bill C-12 in its current state. I would like to see some actual teeth to this. I am also very upset that in selecting the members for the committee, the government has selected a lot of anti-oil and gas people. I think that is stacking the deck in a direction that is not helpful. We will have oil and gas in Canada for a period of time, as we transition to a greener economy. There is a huge amount of emissions reduction that could be done in that area. Those people have already expressed that they have net-zero 2050 plans and are willing to participate.

Let us take advantage of that. Let us all work together. Let us come with a real plan to get to net zero by 2050.

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

Mr. Speaker, this will be a comment. The member indicated that there were a number of credible economists who are touting the new Conservative plan as a great plan and that putting a price on pollution is the right way to go. We have been trying to say that for four or five years. We have been quoting various economists from throughout the country who have been saying that we have to put a price mechanism on pollution if we want to do something about it.

I find it remarkable that the Conservatives are now coming in here and literally using the exact same phrases we have been using for the last four or five years to justify what we did.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been clear that the punishing Liberal carbon tax does zero to reduce emissions in the atmosphere. It just puts money in the government coffers. Our plan is going to put the money back in the pockets of Canadians, so all together, we can participate in helping our country reduce its overall footprint. That is a good thing.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say it out loud because I have not yet had the chance to. It is good to see this conversation about how we can reduce emissions and an attempt to get to a real plan.

It would be great to see Conservatives in this country join the Conservative leadership over decades, going back to Margaret Thatcher, in understanding that climate science requires a response. The concern I have is that the hon. member has suggested that carbon sequestration should be offset in the addition of our megatonnes of pollution.

We already know from our scientists that Canada's boreal forests are a net source of carbon because of insects, diseases and fires. We already know that our permafrost is thawing, creating its role as a net source of carbon.

Going back to Bill C-12, I do have a question for my hon. colleague. While I agree that it is egregious that the minister skipped the parliamentary committee process in appointing a committee in advance of amendments, would she agree it would be far better to have the committee based entirely on experts who could actually hold the government as a whole to account, not merely advise the minister?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is always passionate about this file.

It is very sad that the government, with a whole department of climate experts, does not have a plan. It has had six years in government, running on an agenda to do something to address climate change, and it has failed. What is important is to come up with a plan that all parties could agree to, so regardless of who is in the driver's seat, it will happen.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands pointed out the boreal forest and the fact it is a net emitter. That is what it is. That is a fact. Gaming the system to try to not count things because we do not like what they say is not science. Net-zero is net emissions minus net absorptions, regardless of where they are. I know that makes finding solutions and reducing more complicated, but we cannot just play a game with this. It is real.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for her speech. I will pick up where she and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands left off talking about the forests and their contributions.

The member said it was gaming the system to not count the contributions of the forest. What I would say is those forests have been sequestering carbon, or not, for millennia. They are neither our emissions nor our sequestrations.

Where we can make a difference is by reducing our emissions. We can change that in the forest by how we manage the forest, but we cannot count all those carbon sequestration figures the forests are doing as our sequestration or as cutting down our emissions.

The member is a scientist. Perhaps she could comment on that.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say, as a scientist, that net-zero is exactly that. It is net emissions. Regardless of the source, there are emissions that are man-made and emissions that are not man-made. That is all the emissions. Then, in the same light, there are absorptions. Net-zero really has to look at all of that. If it does not, then it is not really looking at the whole picture and people are picking and choosing what ought to be there.

I agree very much with the member that when it comes to forests, managing the wild fires and all these things we have seen, there are things we could do better. There are solutions the member pointed to. These are the conversations that we need to have, not the conversation in Bill C-12, which would do nothing to come up with any of those plans.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, our government is introducing legislation that will help address the extreme risks of climate change. The science is clear: Human activities are causing unprecedented changes to the earth's climate. Climate change also poses significant risks to human health and safety; the environment, including biodiversity; and economic growth.

Canada's climate is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world's and three times as fast in our northern regions. The effect of this warming is evident in many parts of Canada and will intensify in the future. The consequences of these changes are multiple. For example, the average participation is projected to increase for most of Canada. Also, the availability of fresh water is changing toward an increased risk of summer water shortages, and a warmer climate will intensify certain extreme weather conditions in the future, such as heat waves and floods. Canadians are already feeling the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events, including the changing intensity and frequency of floods, storms and fires; coastal erosion; extreme heat events; melting permafrost; and rising sea levels. These impacts pose a significant risk to the safety, health and well-being of all Canadians; to our communities; to the economy; and to the natural environment.

It is important to ensure that Canadians are protected from these climate change risks. Achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 is critical to mitigating the risks of climate change, not only for Canada, but on a global scale. Indeed, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that meeting this target is necessary to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and reduce the risks of climate change. Limiting the temperature rise to 1.5°C is especially important because it would make a marked difference in the impacts of climate change on all fronts. It would also give us more options for adapting to the effects of climate change, as opposed to a global temperature rise of 2°C.

When Canada ratified the Paris Agreement in 2016, it committed to setting and communicating ambitious national targets and taking ambitious domestic climate change mitigation actions to achieve them. Recall that the Paris Agreement aims to strengthen the efforts to limit the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C and, if possible, to limit this increase to 1.5°C. Currently, the target included in Canada's nationally determined contribution, communicated in accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is for Canada to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The government is committed to meeting and exceeding this target.

Our government is also committed to developing a plan for a prosperous carbon-neutral future for Canada by 2050, supported by public participation, provincial and territorial governments and expert advice. Canadians know that climate change threatens their health, their way of life and their planet. They want climate action now, and that is what this government will continue to do by immediately putting in place the plan to exceed Canada's 2030 climate targets and by legislating a carbon-neutral goal by 2050.

Achieving carbon neutrality by the government requires engaging in a process that takes into account the considerations of those most affected by climate change. Canada's aboriginal peoples and northern communities, while demonstrating exceptional resilience, are particularly vulnerable because of factors such as remoteness, inaccessibility, cold climate, aging and inefficient infrastructure, and reliance on diesel fuel systems to generate electricity and heat homes. That is why the government has committed to advancing the right spaced approach reflective in section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The government is also committed to strengthening its collaboration with Canada's aboriginal peoples on climate change mitigation measures. This commitment builds on initiatives already in place. For example, the government is funding and collaborating with first nations, Métis and Inuit on projects to monitor climate change and indigenous communities, build resilient infrastructure, prepare and implement strategic climate change adaption plans and develop green energy options that reduce reliance on diesel.

The plan to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 should also make the Canadian economy more resilient, inclusive and competitive. With the goal of creating a stronger, more resilient Canada in the wake of the current pandemic, climate action will be a cornerstone of our plan to sustain and create one million jobs across the country.

Despite the global issue of the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change continues to progress. It remains important to recognize that climate change is a global issue that requires immediate action by all governments in Canada, as well as by industry, non-governmental organizations and individual Canadians. However, the government recognizes the important collective and individual actions that have already been taken and wants to sustain the momentum to mitigate climate change.

For example, the federal government and Alberta have launched a Canadian Emissions Reduction Innovation Network to support innovation that would enable the oil and gas industry to meet emissions regulations in a cost-effective manner by funding technology testing infrastructure at key facilities in Alberta and across the country to accelerate the commercialization of these technologies. This type of action demonstrates that it is possible to collectively contribute to climate change mitigation while respecting provincial autonomy, as the act intended to do.

In addition, last year the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change jointly announced a $100-million investment in Clean Resource Innovation Network to support research and development projects that promote environmental and economic performance in the oil and gas sector.

Government-wide collaboration on climate change mitigation is critical, which is why the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act provides for consultations with federal ministers who have responsibilities for action that can be taken to achieve our greenhouse gas emissions targets.

The Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act will contribute to further action on climate change mitigation by requiring the establishment of national greenhouse gas emission reduction targets based on the best available science and by promoting transparency and accountability in meeting those targets. In doing so, the bill will support Canada's achievement of carbon neutrality by 2015 and Canada's international commitments to mitigate climate change.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, considering how poorly the Liberal government has managed the pandemic for Canadians, I am wondering why they should have any confidence that the government can manage the environment, something that is so much more complicated.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will strongly disagree with my neighbour and colleague, the member of Parliament for Cloverdale—Langley City. Our handling of the pandemic has been noted by magazines, newspapers and media around the world. Canadians have had the most vaccinations procured for them, as compared with any other country in the world. This week we have 20 million vaccinations.

I got calls today from our provincial folks, our Minister of Health and others on how to roll out even more vaccines and get them into the arms of Canadians. Over 33% of Canadians have already been vaccinated with one shot. We are number three in the G20. We are doing very well. We have one of the highest success rates in controlling COVID-19 and are keeping the death toll and serious illness rates to a very low minimum. That is being done in combination with Canadians, who have put grit and commitment toward controlling COVID-19, which has been active. At the same time, we are helping Canadians get—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have so many concerns.

I do not know whether my colleague listened to the speech given by my esteemed colleague from Repentigny. It is actually hard for me to explain to the people of Laurentides—Labelle how this translates into accountability. The first thing they are going to ask me is what is going on with Bill C-12. I will reply that we have to look at the purpose of the bill.

It says that the purpose of the bill is not to set targets, but rather require that targets be set. It is 2021. Now is the time to do that. It also says that we need to support international commitments. That will help Canada meet its obligations. People are afraid.

During the pandemic, we have been relying on science. Why can we not do the same for the environment, as people have been calling for, loud and clear, for decades?

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I live in a province that has accepted the science, and folks on the other side of the aisle are now thinking carbon pricing is a great idea. Imitation is the best form of flattery, so I thank them for that.

In my province of British Columbia, climate pricing has been in place for over a decade now, and we have been seeing the results of it. Almost one out of every 10 vehicles sold is electric, and oil and gas consumption at the petrol pumps has been down significantly. B.C. has been cleaning its environment in that respect, and nationally we have physical attributes, such as planting two billion trees. There are industry standards, even in the oil and gas sector, that are helping to reduce carbon emissions. There are even comments from some CEOs, like the head of Shell Canada, who think that Bill C-10 is the right direction.

Whether we look at industry, the average Canadian or stakeholders—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will try to get one more question in.

The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the member why this bill is so timid and so late. Jack Layton tabled a similar bill 15 years ago and it was killed by the Conservatives. The Liberals have been in power for six years and this is what we get.

Why have we not seen more urgency and more action from the government?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been working hard on this since forming government in 2015. We committed to the Paris accord, and there now is a government south of the border that has reinstated itself in it. We have even committed to increasing the targets of the Paris accord.

The Liberal government has been committed ever since it has been in government. Challenges have happened in the past, and as the member opposite said, the Conservatives killed a bill previously. Every member of the Conservative Party has fought tooth and nail not to have any environmental policies put in place. However, our government, the Liberal government, hopefully along with other parties in the House, will continue to commit to a direction to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, clean the environment and have one of the best climate action plans on this planet.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Ethics; the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, Health.

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

Mr. Speaker, environment and climate change are issues that consistently rank as top concerns for the constituents of my riding in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. That is why I am pleased to have this short opportunity to intervene and give some of my thoughts on the bill that is before us, Bill C-12.

The reason this issue ranks so highly in concern among my constituents is that we have had consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments that have failed to meet a single climate target. I think Canadians are quite tired at this point, it being 2021, of governments committing to targets and then missing them again and again and again. We are running out of time to turn things around.

I often wonder where we would be today if, all the way back in 2010, the Senate had not killed Jack Layton's climate change accountability act, which was passed by the democratically elected House of Commons. We would have had 11 years of legislated targets in place, and I think Canada would be well on its way to achieving what we need to as a country.

Climate scientists have most definitely reached a strong consensus that, in the absence of any measures to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions significantly, changes in our climate will be substantial and will have long-lasting effects on many of earth's physical and biological systems. The evidence is very clear. It is no longer in dispute. We have observable data. We can compare it with the fossil record and with what we see in earth's geographic record. It is there for all to see.

We know these changes are going to bring about more frequent and more severe winter storms and summer hurricanes. Many parts of the world are going to see deadly heat waves that will result in mass casualties. We are going to see desertification spread and prolonged droughts. Many populations that are already suffering extreme water shortages are going to see those problems exacerbated.

Here in Canada, we are already becoming familiar with the wildfire season, which is beginning earlier, lasting longer and is much more intense, especially in provinces such as Alberta and British Columbia. Of course, because Canada has the longest coastline in the world, and much of the world's population lives on the coastline, we are going to be impacted by the sea level rise. The levels the oceans will rise by may not look like all that much, but when these are combined with shifting tides and storms, many cities are going to face some extreme flooding dangers, and many in the world have already seen this.

We have seen a rise in ocean acidification, which has an impact on our fisheries because of the bleaching of corals and combines with all sorts of problems in our oceans. Of course, all of these problems are going to contribute to the migration of millions of climate refugees. Although Canada, by virtue of its geography, is separated from much of the world by the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, we live in an increasingly globalized world, and for us to say we will be immune to all of these problems is a venture into fantasy.

We know we will be impacted by negative supply shocks. We know many of these climate-related weather phenomena are going to have a physical impact on Canadian infrastructure. We know our financial system is going to be negatively impacted, and we can see that in some of the data that already exists. According to some reports, climate-related disasters cost the world approximately $650 billion from 2016-2018. We know that a warming world is going to depress growth in agricultural yields by upwards of 30% by the year 2050. That is going to impact many small-scale farmers around the world.

The UN Environment Programme estimates the global cost of adapting to climate impacts to grow to anywhere from $140 billion to $300 billion per year in just nine short years: by the year 2030. This could increase to almost $500 billion per year by 2050. When I hear members in the House of Commons wonder aloud about the costs of the transition, I do not think we fully appreciate the costs of doing nothing or of not doing enough.

I have a very real concern about the biological effects of climate change and what it is going to do to our ecosystems, but for those who are more aligned to the monetary matters of our country, we have to be prepared to ask ourselves how much, as a country, we are prepared to spend in future years' tax revenues. How much are we prepared to spend to adapt to a changing climate and to fix the disasters? These are going to range in the billions of dollars just for Canada. The smart economics are for us to start making changes now and address this problem before the costs start spiralling out of control. This is why we, as a country, must have legislated targets in order to reduce our emissions.

I understand that Canada has fossil fuels. We have been developing them and exporting them, and we have many people whose livelihoods depend on the sector. The changes coming our way are not going to be easy, but they are going to be necessary. This is why, if we are going to do justice to the energy workers currently employed in the oil and gas sector, we absolutely must have a just transition strategy in place. We can already see the writing on the wall. Increasingly, investment is drying up and we are going to see more and more investment firms and banks start listing fossil fuel reserves as stranded assets. We need to identify the fact that many energy workers have transferable skills that are going to be needed in the renewable energy economy in the future. In addition, in Bill C-12 we need to start employing that just transition strategy so that we can take advantage of their skill sets and really position ourselves where we need to be.

I think Bill C-12 is a great first draft and, like any first draft, there is a nucleus of an idea there that we can work with. However, I believe that it needs substantial revisions. The legislation as it is currently written would allow targets to be set by the minister of the environment for the years 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045. The bill also requires that we have an emissions reduction plan, a progress report and assessment report for each target. It would establish an arm's-length advisory body to provide the minister of the environment with advice on how to achieve net zero emissions. It would require the minister of finance to prepare an annual report detailing how we are managing financial risks and so on. While there are some good things in place, and it is a step in the right direction, I believe that, given we are arguably in the most critical decade for addressing climate change, waiting until 2030 is a bridge too far. When the bill gets to committee, I would like to see committee members work constructively together to make some significant amendments to the bill.

I think that we absolutely must have a 2025 milestone target that would require a progress report by 2023 and an assessment in 2027. I also believe that we need far clearer and stronger accountability measures put in place on progress reporting, assessment reporting, emissions reduction planning and target setting. Again, this is a moment in time, and given what we know about climate change, we need to be upfront and very transparent with the Canadian people about what we as a country need to do. Also, the environment commissioner needs to be made an independent officer, similar to other independent officers of Parliament. As well, the legislation before us should not be by itself but should come along with those significant investments in that just and sustainable recovery plan that is going to support our workers, families and communities with training and good jobs.

To conclude, I implore my colleagues, even those who have doubts about the bill, to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let us recognize that Bill C-12 has its flaws and that there is a lot to be desired within the bill, but let us at least vote in principle to support the idea behind the bill, get it to committee and allow important witness testimony to inform the amendments that it needs in order to make it a much better bill and one that Canada needs.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Nature Energy just put out a study from the University of California that states roughly 20% of electric vehicle owners in California replaced their cars with gas ones, with the main reason being the length of time to charge.

Does the member recognize the serious problem of discontinuance due to the technological challenges we still face at this time?

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

Mr. Speaker, like any early stage of a technology that is being adopted, we still have more advances that can be done. The technology with respect to zero-emission vehicles is growing rapidly. A lot of car companies are now starting to throw considerable financial weight into this, and I think we are going to see in short order a huge improvement not only in battery life but also in battery charge capacity.

I own a zero-emission vehicle. It depends on the kind of charger one gets, but it allows me to meet my needs quite ably and it is very satisfying knowing I am going around town not having any emissions. In a recent Angus Reid poll, only 34% of Conservative Party supporters said they believed climate change was human-caused. The Conservatives have a real problem, and the Conservative Party has to own up to that and really have a frank conversation with its membership on the seriousness of this problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is so incredibly short-sighted when Conservative members try to use the early place in the evolution of a particular product as an excuse for why we need to abandon it completely. The first electric car I had was not fully electric. It was a Chevy Volt and only had 40 kilometres' worth of electricity on a charge. The electric car I have now, the Hyundai Kona, can get me to Ottawa on a charge and then I charge it here before going back home.

Did the member feel like banging his head against the wall the way I did when he listened to the previous question he heard?

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

Mr. Speaker, I need to save my forehead from that kind of pain, but in all seriousness, to the member's point, it is important to underline that with any early adaptation of a technology there will always be growing pains. We saw it at the turn of the last century when people were transitioning from horses and buggies to the first petrol-powered cars. It will take time for the infrastructure to spread and for electric cars to really get to where people need them to be, but it is happening. Many vehicles out there now have a 400-kilometre or 500-kilometre range on a single charge, which is a huge improvement over just five years of the technology being out there.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. In terms of banging heads against the wall, I cannot say the Liberals are helping much. I also think that there are many things giving them a headache at the end of the day.

Bill C-215, introduced by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, was a climate bill with teeth that required the government to meet its targets by 2050. The bill we are currently studying is very timid, although we support it in principle. I would like to know whether my colleague sees the many paradoxes in the Liberals' actions in the fight against climate change.

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

Mr. Speaker, I live in a province where the Liberals spent billions of our dollars to buy a bitumen-exporting pipeline and are spending billions more to increase its exporting capacity, so I very much understand his concerns.

I recognize what the Bloc has done on climate change. I also want to recognize the member for Winnipeg Centre in our own party, who has also brought up similar legislation. There are a lot of efforts from all parties, and we all need to collectively come together to treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves and make sure our actions meet our words in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-12, such an important bill. I do not think there is anything more important than what this bill seeks to set in motion.

We have made it very clear that we must reach net-zero by 2050 and that we must exceed the Paris climate targets by 2030. What this bill would do is set the framework to establish and measure those targets, but more importantly, afterwards, figure out if something needs to be adjusted and hold accountability back to Parliament for whatever governments come and go between now and 2050, so that Canadians have an ability to assess how we are doing.

I say that nothing is more important than this, because I cannot think of any particular piece of legislation that could trump this in terms of the impact it would have for generations to come.

I think of my children, who are 17, four and two, and the world they will live in 50 years from now. I worry about what it will look like from an environmental perspective and from an ecosystem perspective, not just here in Canada, as there is no doubt, in my opinion, that we are probably one of the better-off countries in terms of the effects of climate change, but what climate change will mean to things like world order. What impact will climate refugees, those seeking refugee status as a result of climate change, have in our world? Nothing matters more, in my opinion, than what this legislation attempts to hold governments to account on as we move into the future.

I think of some of the discussions that have been had today, and I think of what it is going to take to get to this. A lot of people talk about how this is going to be very challenging, how there is a lot of work that needs to be done, how electric vehicles are not where they need to be and what the real impact on reducing those emissions will be, and it is daunting to think about it. I think we really have to change a lot of what we do.

However, if we stop there and only consider the daunting perspective of what needs to be done, we will completely miss the opportunity that comes along with it. In my opinion, there is a great opportunity here to be leaders in the technology. Who does not want to develop those new technologies that the world will adopt? Who does not want to be an exporter of great technology? We need to be at the leading edge of this so that we are exporting our technologies around the world, as other nations that are developing are looking for ways to do things differently and to be more environmentally sensitive so that the impact is more environmentally correct, but also on a more localized level.

I will never forget one of the climate strike rallies in Kingston on a Friday afternoon a couple of years ago. One of the organizers of the event, Gavin Hutchison, whom I know very well as he helped me in my 2015 campaign, came up to me and said, “Think of the potential for job creation in doing what we need to do.” Kingston is renowned for its old buildings, and of course old buildings do not lend themselves well to being extremely efficient until they have been retrofitted. Gavin pointed over to Kingston city hall and said, “Think of the work that has to be done to change those windows to triple-pane windows and relook at the way we do our heating systems by using geothermal and other ways of doing things.” All of this will employ thousands of people in the short, medium and long term in order to get to where we need to be.

When we have a debate like this, I think of somebody like Gavin. For somebody who is so incredibly passionate and who understands the dire circumstances we are in, he still has the ability to be optimistic. He still looks at the glass as half-full, rather than saying, “Oh well, I can only drive 300 kilometres with my electric car, so I may as well go back to the F-150”, which, by the way, is going electric in the next couple of years. People like Gavin do not think like that. The vast majority of Canadians do not think like that. They look at things from an optimistic perspective. Our economy and markets look at things optimistically: Where will the leading-edge technology be? Capital for anything with the term “green” attached to it is readily available because the markets know that this is where the future is.

We are about to unlock incredible potential with the way our commitment to our environmental responsibilities is changing. I think of some of the opposition to this bill that I have heard today and I cannot seem to wrap my head around it. Conservative members seem to suggest that they are against this bill and I cannot understand why. When we think about it, this bill basically says that we establish benchmarks and then measure ourselves against them. What more would an opposition party want than that? We are literally putting this into legislation. We are saying, this is what we are going to accomplish and, by the way, we are going to follow up to see if we actually did it. With the ammunition it would give to the Conservative Party in attacking and holding a government to account, I cannot understand why anybody would be against this. Even if someone was against doing anything with respect to climate change, there is still the opportunity to hold the government to account.

That brings me to my next point. Are the Conservatives really against this bill, or are they against the evolution and modernizing of our economy so that we can get to where we are being more environmentally responsible? It is so funny that the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, who was speaking earlier, was talking about Liberals being hypocrites. This is coming from a party that, by the way, now supports pricing pollution and clean fuel standards. For years, they fought us on this. They repeatedly said that the Liberals were trying to pass a carbon tax, that they cannot and will not have it, and now it is suddenly what they are going to do.

As if that was not the best part, I want to read something the member for Battle River—Crowfoot said in this House today. Members might find this interesting. The member said, “all members of this House...certainly from the Conservative side, support a strong environment for our future, but we also believe that needs to go hand in hand with the economy”. A Conservative member in this House today said the environment needs to go hand in hand with the economy. I feel for the previous minister of environment, the member for Ottawa Centre, who for years sat in the House saying the exact same thing and she was heckled repeatedly for it. What is next? Are the Conservatives going to come in here and say “the middle class and those working hard to join it”? Is that the next line that is going to start coming from the Conservatives?

I will end with where I started. Nothing is more important than this bill. Nothing is more important than defining what our future will look like and, even more importantly, holding any government to account to make sure it delivers, and if it does not, understanding exactly what it is going to do differently so that it does. Without this, nothing else really matters. This is the most important thing that we can do for future generations.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. My hon. colleague has said what the government is going to do, but the government has been in power for almost six years and emissions have not gone down. The government has filibustered at committee, obfuscated and done everything it can to avoid making sure that information is provided to this House, to Parliament and to Canadians.

Can my hon. colleague tell us exactly how this legislation will hold the government to account?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do remember very well when this member helped get this government into power in 2015.

The legislation is very clear. It talks about establishing the framework. It has the years in it for which accountability will come back once the benchmarks are established. The opposition can then follow along in the timeline to see if the government has reached the targets. If it has not, then it might be time for another energetic question period. That is basically how they will be able to follow along and make sure that the government is held accountable.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to my colleague, I cannot help but think of the novel 1984 by George Orwell.

I am not thinking of the party in power in the Orwell's novel, but rather of his concept of doublethink. Doublethink is the ability to hold two completely different opinions and to believe them both while forgetting that they are completely contradictory.

In its budget, the Liberal Party has allocated $21.6 billion for a green recovery. However, it spent $17 billion on a pipeline and gave the go-ahead to offshore drilling without an environmental assessment. At present, it is introducing Bill C-12, which contains nothing that is binding on the government.

Can my hon. colleague tell me why the government voted against Bill C-215 and is now proposing a much more timid bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no doublethink here. I am on the record as having said that I did not think it was a good idea to purchase a pipeline. I am on the record as having said that. I am saying what I think. I am standing here as an individual member of Parliament to deliver that.

This bill is at the stage where we would like to get it to committee, so that if a member is interested in advocating for why targets need to be in this bill, as opposed to it just being a framework, then I think it would be a great opportunity for the member and others to do that at committee. I have heard others say that, and I am not even completely against it. I would love to hear what the committee has to say about that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that we have to change a lot of what we do, and yet we have seen the Liberal government continuing and increasing the massive oil and gas subsidies that are given, but it has given very little to clean energy.

What I really want to talk about is the Trans Mountain pipeline. The latest estimate from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and also by the company, is $18.5 billion, to build the pipeline and ram it through. It will result in the mutilation and destruction of the Burnett Creek watershed, which is just a few kilometres from here. It will substantially increase greenhouse gas emissions. It is a massive mega project that essentially means Canada will never be able to meet its commitments under Paris.

My question is very simple. The government is ramming this pipeline through, which means 50 years of increased oil and gas exports, raw bitumen. Why is the government not actually walking the talk?

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

Mr. Speaker, one might think the member did not hear the answer to the previous question. I just finished saying that I am on the record as having said that I am not in favour of the purchase of that pipeline. I do respect the fact that there are competing challenges when we do these things. I realize that the government would have had to weigh a whole host of different variables into making that decision, and I respect that.

On oil and gas subsidies, I could not agree with the member more. Again, that is another thing I am on the record for, as saying that I do not think we should be subsidizing oil and gas in Canada.

I would encourage the member to listen to my speech and then ask me a question. If he is going to go off topic onto something that is completely different, like the two issues he brought up, he should at least find out what my position is on them, so that we can have a meaningful discussion about it when he does ask me a question.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.

The legislation before the House is nothing more than more virtue-signalling from a virtue-signalling government led by a virtue-signalling Prime Minister. The Liberals talk the talk when it comes to reducing GHGs, but when it comes to walking the walk and actually delivering, the government, without more, gets a big fat F.

Accountability is in the title of the bill. Accountability is mentioned eight more times in the body of the bill. However, make no mistake that when the Liberals talk about accountability and when they incorporate the word “accountability” into their own legislation, they mean not accountability for the Liberals. After all, the first targets provided for in the bill are in the year 2030, which is nearly a decade from now, likely long after the government has left office and almost certainly long after the Prime Minister has left office.

When the Liberals talk about accountability therefore, they are talking about accountability for future governments, but not for themselves. So much for the Liberals talking about accountability. It is no wonder that the Liberals want to impose accountability on future government, while exempting themselves from the same accountability. This is not the first time the government has set targets for reducing GHG emissions and then completely failing to meet them. When the Prime Minister took office in 2015, he committed to the Paris climate accord and with it the Paris targets of a 30% reduction of GHG emissions from 2005 levels by the year 2030.

How is the government fairing with respect to meeting that target? According to the national inventory report published by the Department of Environment and Climate Change, the government is projected to miss its 2030 targets by a full 15%. It is important to emphasize that the national inventory report is a government report. That is the government's own projection. It is missing the mark by 15%. In response to that, this projection is likely wildly optimistic given the fact that over the last six years under the government's watch GHG emissions have gone up, not down.

It is important to note that not only is the government way off from meeting its 2030 Paris commitments, it failed to meet the previous 2020 commitment of reducing GHGs 17% below 2005 levels. The government missed that target by a whopping 123 million tonnes. To put that into context, that is the equivalent of Canada's entire agricultural sector and a good part of Canada's electricity sector.

It should be noted that while the government completely failed to meet its 2020 targets of a 17% reduction, our neighbour to the south, the United States, actually did achieve those targets set by the previous Obama administration in 2009. The U.S. reduced its GHG levels by 21% under the Trump administration.

I know the Prime Minister likes to compare himself to President Trump, but I certainly think he would be rather embarrassed to to learn that under the Trump administration the U.S. achieved its 2020 targets, while he completely missed the mark.

What does the Prime Minister say after completely blowing the 2020 targets and being completely off track with regard to 2030? The Prime Minister's answer, being the virtue-signalling Prime Minister he is, is to simply pull a new number out of a hat and come up with a new and more ambitious target, forgetting the fact he cannot even meet his Paris target.

When the government tabled its budget, the government said that we should forget 30% and that it would up the ante to a 36% reduction. Then, three days later when the Prime Minister appeared at the Biden climate summit, the Prime Minister said that 36% was nothing, that it was a pittance, how about 45%? That is a 9% increase with respect to a commitment to reduce Canada's GHGs within the span of three days.

At the U.S. Biden climate summit, President Biden committed to a 50% to 52% reduction. How much longer will it be before the Prime Minister suddenly announces that it will not be 45% but that will be 50% to 52%? Surely the Prime Minister, being a virtue signaller, will want to outpace President Biden. Why not 55%, 60% or maybe even 80%? What a sham this is.

If the policies implemented by the government to justify its targets did not have such a devastating effect on entire sectors of the Canadian economy, the Prime Minister changing targets seemingly every day on a napkin would constitute a national joke. While the Prime Minister seemingly could not outbid himself fast enough before President Biden, lapping it up with other world leaders, there was a world leader also at the summit, who leads a country that produces the most GHG emissions in the world, that being President Xi of China.

What was President Xi's commitment at the summit? He said that China would “strive to peak carbon dioxide emissions before 2030”. Let us let that sink in. In other words, President Xi committed to increasing GHG emissions over the next 10 years. This is from a country that contributes to 28% of global emissions, and is rising every day, compared to Canada's 1.5%. What was the Prime Minister's response to President Xi's total lack of a commitment? He said nothing. He is apparently fine with China increasing GHG emissions. He is apparently fine with China building hundreds of coal-fired power plants as we speak.

Simply put, the best that can be said for the Prime Minister's approach when it comes to reducing GHGs is that it is a wholly unserious one from a wholly unserious Prime Minister.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech.

Honestly, for the sake of future generations, I have a hard time swallowing what the government on the other side of the House and the former government have to say. I was around in 2009. This issue was top of mind for me when the Copenhagen meeting was being held. What happened then? His own government threw in the towel.

It is therefore hard for me to participate in these debates and see what kind of resolve there is. Earlier I spoke about targets and objectives, and I wondered if the government was going to walk the talk. All I can say is that I am ashamed.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle that under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper, Canada actually saw a real reduction in GHGs. The Chrétien government signed the Kyoto accord and did precisely nothing. The current government signed on to the Paris agreement and we have gone backward, not forward.

With respect to the Conservative Party, we have put forward a comprehensive plan that recognizes this is a global issue that requires working with our allies and that we have to deal with countries that are the biggest emitters, including China.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the climate crisis is the foundational political issue of our times. There are rarely issues in politics that are existential, but this is one of them. Our planet is at stake. Ecosystems may be permanently destroyed, species may go extinct and human existence will be irreparably altered.

Over the last 25 years, we have seen numerous targets and pledges made by successive Liberal governments to meet carbon reduction targets and the Liberals have missed every single one of them. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Given that the Liberals have a 100% record at failing to hit their targets as well as their contradictory behaviour in expanding fossil fuel infrastructure, could the member tell me how Canadians could possibly trust the Liberal government to hit these targets without annual mandatory reductions or a 2025 target?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Kingsway is absolutely right. The current government has missed the mark time and time again.

As I noted at the beginning of my speech, one of the problems with this bill is that the first target is set in 2030, nearly 10 years from now, roughly three elections or four elections away. Very simply put, the government is not serious when it comes to transparency or accountability.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a farmer, I have been in the business of carbon sequestration all my life and it is pretty exciting to see what kind of things we can do. If we take a look at the greenhouse, we pump CO2 in there. We go from 400 parts per million to 1,000 parts per million and we get a 21% to 61% increase in crop yield. It is amazing.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about the Conservatives' plan to support and encourage individual Canadian innovators in finding new technologies that improve our environment.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Cloverdale—Langley City is absolutely right that carbon sequestration is key to reducing Canada's GHG emissions. I know my province of Alberta had called on the federal government to step up to the plate and provide real leadership. We saw a mere pittance in the budget toward supporting carbon capture and storage.

By contrast, the Conservative Party has a real plan, including a $5-billion commitment to build carbon capture capacity and innovation. It is absolutely key. The Conservatives are committed to doing it, and working with the provinces toward reducing GHGs.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-12 from the territory of the Snuneymuxw First Nation, and to serve the communities in Nanaimo—Ladysmith and the unceded territory of Snaw-naw-as, Stz'uminus, Snuneymuxw and Lyackson first nations.

Climate concerns rank very high in my riding. On November 21, I had the pleasure of taking part in the inaugural meeting of the Community Climate Hub here in Nanaimo. There were some great presentations and sharing of ideas about what we can do as a community to combat climate change. The ideas included creating active, transportation-friendly streets; improving our local food system and lowering the carbon footprint of our food; energy retrofits for homes, businesses and institutions; and transitioning from fossil-fuel heating, oil and fracked gas to electricity and heat pumps. There were suggestions for better public transit and for protecting the local natural environment with green spaces to ensure a vibrant biodiversity both within the city and in the surrounding area. It was an energizing meeting. Climate action at the personal and community level is important and necessary, but all of the actions that Canadians take individually and locally can be wiped out with the approval of a single diluted bitumen pipeline or a liquefied fracked gas terminal.

Just days before this community meeting, the federal government tabled Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. Unfortunately, this piece of legislation will not hold this government to account for emissions reductions or the next government or the government after that. The accountability does not start until 2030, and that accountability is weak at best. We need climate action and accountability now.

In 2015, this government went to the Paris summit with the Harper government's target to reduce emissions by 30% over 2005 levels by 2030. The government left Paris with that pathetic target in place and tried to pretend that it was the Paris target. In the Paris climate accord decision document, Canada agreed to set new emissions reduction targets in 2020 and every five years after that. It did not happen. It was not until Earth Day this year under pressure from the Biden administration that the government increased the target to between 40% to 45% by 2030. That target is still completely inadequate and fails to address the urgency of the climate crisis. We still do not have a 2025 target that we committed to under the Paris accord.

The last IPCC report states that we have just 10 years to bring emissions down substantially or we cannot keep global warming to under 1.5°. The prospect of a livable future for our children and grandchildren is in peril.

I have heard the argument too many times that what Canada does in terms of climate action will make no difference, but, in fact, we are the ninth highest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet and the eleventh highest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita. When we compare greenhouse gas emissions reductions, we have the worst record of the G8. Canada is a climate laggard.

The U.K. has a carbon budget law that binds governments to emissions targets and holds them accountable. In other words, it eliminates politics from climate action. In 1990, the U.K. produced 25% more emissions than Canada. It has reduced its emissions by 42% and made a commitment at Paris to reduce emissions by 68% by 2030. Collectively, the 27 countries of the European Union have reduced their emissions by 25% since 1990.

Canada's current emission levels are 21% higher than they were in 1990. That is not climate leadership, it is shameful. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have signed on to nine international climate accords and have failed on every account. None of the governments that signed those agreements created a plan, and Canada has not met a single one of the commitments it has made.

Canada's last target, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, was set by the Harper Conservative government in 2009. Eight provinces and three territories representing 85% of Canada's population were on track to meet that target, but two provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, increased greenhouse gas emissions so much that they completely wiped out the sacrifices, investments and advancements to climate action made by the rest of the country.

These emissions increases can be attributed almost exclusively to the oil and gas industry. Where is the accountability? How is it that the federal government cannot ensure that the provinces work together to meet our international commitments?

Now British Columbia is joining the rogue provinces ignoring Canada's commitment to climate action and accountability. B.C. is providing billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies for fracking and the export of liquified fracked gas. LNG Canada is owned and controlled by five foreign multinationals. It will be the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia. The B.C. government is practically giving the resource away by providing fracking companies with billions of dollars in deep-well subsidies while only collecting a fraction in royalties.

From the wellhead to the end consumer, fracked gas has the equivalent greenhouse gas footprint as burning coal for electricity. Extracting natural gas through hydraulic fracking releases methane into the atmosphere. For the first 20 years after it is released, methane is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Fracking uses and poisons huge amounts of water, poisons airsheds and has been linked to increased risks of asthma, cancer and birth defects. Fracking causes earthquakes, and yet the B.C. government allows it in the vicinity of huge hydroelectric dams.

Many jurisdictions around the world have either placed moratoriums on hydraulic gas fracking or banned it outright. Some jurisdictions are also banning the installation of gas heating and gas appliances in new construction. Why? It is because they understand that creating more demand for a product that releases climate-destroying methane is irresponsible.

Fracking needs to be banned in Canada. It is incompatible with lowering carbon emissions, combatting climate change, protecting fresh water, maintaining a healthy environment, and respecting indigenous sovereignty, rights and title.

As I speak, some of the last big-tree old-growth forests in B.C. are either being logged or are under immediate threat of being logged, trees that sequester massive amounts of carbon, far more than an acre of seedlings. The B.C. government is allowing those trees to be cut down. The B.C. government is also allowing whole trees to be ground up into pellets and exported as biofuel. That is not climate leadership.

These are just some of the reasons that Canada needs a carbon budget law. We need to take politics out of climate action, and follow the science. The priorities of the government demonstrate that it is not serious enough about the existential threat of climate change. The government is spending $17 billion on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Trans Mountain is not just a climate loser, it is a money loser. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, the only way that TMX will not result in billions of dollars in losses is if the government abandons action on climate change and increases oil sands production.

We need a just transition for fossil fuel workers and an end to all subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Research conducted by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which breaks down new and recycled spending promises, shows that the government is proposing to allocate just 0.25% of Canada’s GDP toward climate action. That is far less than the 2% of GDP that leading climate economist Nicholas Stern says is needed to stop global warming from surpassing two degrees.

Canada has committed $5.1 billion per year towards climate action, when we need to be committing $40 billion a year. That is not climate leadership. The climate crisis is the defining struggle of our generation, just as World War II was the struggle of our grandparents' generation. Focusing on incentives for households and businesses is not enough. The government must take charge, force the provinces into line to meet our international commitments and bind us to a whole-of-government approach that mandates action to win this struggle.

The real obstacle is not the climate deniers, it is politicians who recognize the science but lack the courage to remove politics from climate action. We need a carbon budget law. Bill C-12 is not it, and does not meet the challenge before us. It provides a false sense of security, and pushes long overdue action and accountability down the road for another decade.

Young people across this country are demanding better from us. They, our children and our grandchildren deserve more than this weak piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the part of the member's speech where he was talking about the offsets between different provinces. To be completely honest, it is not something I was entirely aware of. He was suggesting that some provinces have done better and that a couple of others have done worse, which is how the offset was calculated. Can he expand on that?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, if we look at the analysis of our 2020 target for the Copenhagen Accord, Ontario met the target. Other provinces reduced their emissions and had a plan they followed through on. They reduced their emissions by almost 17%, which was what the target was. Alberta and Saskatchewan increased their emissions so much that we basically flatlined between 2005 and 2020, so we did not meet those targets.

What is happening now in British Columbia means we are going to see a massive expansion in fracking for LNG Canada. We know that gas fracking is terrible for the climate. It is a climate killer. When we put methane into the atmosphere, it is 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas. It is going to create a serious problem for us. We have a third province that has now hopped onto this bandwagon of being a climate rogue and the federal government needs to step up, show leadership and make sure the provinces are held to account for our international agreements.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's detailed speech. We will remember these failures for the rest of our lives.

I would like to hear his thoughts on the bill that unfortunately never came to be, as well as on the need to act very quickly, without the usual partisanship we see always focused on protecting the economy.

If we had invested in innovation and the environment in recent decades, we would have already transitioned to green energies. I would like to hear my colleague speak to that.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are so far behind in this country that other countries are far ahead of us. There is technology that is being developed in Canada that is being used in Europe. Corvus Energy in Richmond designed the battery system that has electrified the ferry fleets in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. We have a company in Mississauga that is creating hydrogen trains, locomotives, for the European train system. Canadian technology is being developed. We could be further ahead on that kind of technology development if we were promoting it as a government and not just sitting back and having our economy dependent on the extraction, rip and ship, of raw resources so that when a pipeline gets cancelled we have to have an emergency debate.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have heard the term “walk the walk” many times today. It reminds me of when I was at a G20 energy meeting in Argentina three years ago where the U.K. minister got up and said, “We have to walk the walk.” He was referring to climate accountability legislation the U.K. brought in. We now have a bill before us that kicks the can down the road another decade with weak targets. I guess I am despairing about what we have to do here to get that sense of urgency. I wonder if the member can comment on that.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I feel the member's urgency. I am a grandfather now and I fear for the future of my children and my grandchildren. This bill is not accountable at all. To do a review in 2028 of our 2030 targets is not good enough. We are supposed to be taking stock in 2023 of how our targets are being adhered to for our 2025 target. The Paris accord does not even mention 2030. We are climate laggards in this country. We need to get down to it and be accountable. We need a carbon budget law like the U.K. has.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-12, which our government introduced in the House.

This bill, which is entitled the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, is the culmination of many years of advocacy, work and national and international negotiations. It proposes a legislative framework to support our goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. The need for this net-zero target is based on the best scientific knowledge available, which was clearly set out in the most recent special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, in 2018.

The report clearly illustrates the devastating effects of global warming of 1.5°C. It shows that human-induced warming has already reached an average of approximately 1°C above pre-industrial levels. I want to clarify, for the benefit of the House, that experts agree that humans are responsible for this warming, unlike what was said at the Conservative Party convention.

The science is clear: to hold the temperature increase to 1.5°C and stave off the worst effects of climate warming, we must achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The Paris Agreement, to which Canada is a signatory, echoes these findings. It calls on governments around the world to take urgent, ambitious climate change action to maintain climate warming well below the bar of 2°C and pursue efforts to limit it to below 1.5°C. This would prevent the worst consequences of climate change, and it is urgent that we act quickly so as not miss this positive opportunity that is slipping through our fingers.

It is extremely important to not only act quickly, but effectively. That is why the government established the net-zero advisory body, an independent body that will help Canada achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. It will ensure that national greenhouse gas emission targets are established using the best available data. This advisory body will provide the Government of Canada with expert advice on how to reduce our emissions, reach our objectives and ensure that Canada excels in the net-zero economy of the 21st century. We expect that the proposed measures will serve as a catalyst for long-term growth that fosters low carbon emissions, sustainable jobs and our collective health and safety.

Canada is not alone in aiming for net zero by 2050. Many other countries, as well as provincial and state governments, cities and businesses have rallied to the net zero by 2050 target. Some countries have already legislated or signalled their intent to legislate their commitment to achieve net zero by 2050. These include Norway, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, New Zealand and Japan. Here in Canada, Quebec has committed, Nova Scotia has legislated its commitment, and British Columbia's current government has also pledged to do so.

This push to achieve net zero by 2050 and the steps many governments have pledged to take to achieve that goal unite not just the international community but all segments of society, including environmental government agencies, unions, first nations, indigenous peoples and the private sector. Furthermore, environmental organizations such as Ecojustice, the David Suzuki Foundation, Équiterre and many others see the introduction of Bill C-12 as a major step forward for Canada.

Combined with a strong plan to fight climate change, this legislative framework will provide the necessary transparency and accountability, no matter which party is in power, throughout the entirety of the important and crucial challenge of achieving net-zero emissions.

Many large Canadian companies have already committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. Furthermore, some Canadian companies such as Maple Leaf Foods and the Canadian Automobile Association, or CAA, are already carbon neutral.

In light of these efforts on all fronts, it is now Canada's turn to commit to reaching net-zero emissions by introducing the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. This act will require national greenhouse gas emissions targets to be set every five years starting in 2030 in order to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. This approach will ensure transparency with regard to the measures and progress necessary to reach this goal, earning Canadians' trust.

This legislation will create accountability to ensure we are meeting our targets. It also gives the Minister of Environment and Climate Change additional responsibilities, including the tabling of several progress reports and plans before Parliament.

If the target is not met in any given year, Canada will have to disclose why the target was not met. It will also be required to provide a description of actions the government is taking or will take to address the failure to achieve the target.

The legislation also requires the Minister of Finance to work with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change 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.

We know that the cost of climate inaction can be very high. We need only think of the financial implications of natural disasters, not to mention the immense and immeasurable cost of lost biodiversity. These reports, enshrined in law, will ensure this financial transparency related to climate risks.

Finally, the legislation requires the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development to examine and report on the government's implementation of measures aimed at mitigating climate change at least once every five years.

All of these measures in the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act will ensure a clear and credible process for setting our targets and will allow for transparency and accountability on the progress made. This accountability is essential as Canada commits to net-zero emissions by 2050 and as we meet our new and ambitious target for 2030.

I remind members that the government announced a more detailed plan to meet our Paris commitments last fall. This plan included new investments to support and encourage Canadian businesses and help them expedite the transition to a successful, net-zero and sustainable economy that is, most importantly, globally competitive.

As the Prime Minister said, “Our most important international partners and competitors are positioning themselves to attract investment in new clean technologies. Canada needs to do at least that, if not more.”

Net zero offers the biggest economic opportunities of our age and will ensure a viable future for us, our children and our children's children. A few months after releasing our detailed plan, we responded to Canadians, who called on us to be even more ambitious and exceed our 2030 target under the Paris Agreement by almost a third for a total greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 40% to 45% by 2030.

Achieving our climate targets is ambitious, long-term work that requires immediate action on the part of all governments in Canada, industry, government organizations, indigenous peoples and the entire population. It is important to recognize the individual and collective actions already taken on this front. Provincial and territorial actions are very important to ensuring Canada's success in the fight against climate change. They will complement our actions and enable us to exceed our targets. The provinces and territories continue to announce ambitious new objectives and actions.

Just recently, the Government of Quebec launched the 2030 plan for a green economy, a policy framework for the electrification of transportation and to fight climate change. Although the bill before us today does not impose any obligations on the provinces and territories, their opinions and contributions, along with those of indigenous peoples, experts, non-governmental organizations and citizens, will be solicited with regard to the targets and plans prepared under the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act.

A single government cannot transform our economy for the future and ensure a prosperous net-zero emissions future by 2050 on its own. I dream of the day that the Conservative Party of Canada, like the Conservative Party of Great Britain, will recognize the importance of climate change and of having serious plans and targets in place to address it.

I hope that the members of the opposition will support Bill C-12, which will hold us all accountable for this net-zero emissions future. This bill is necessary not only for the transparency it will bring, but also for the positive impact it will have on the health, opportunities and well-being of our children and grandchildren. It is a question of fairness.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I listened intently to the minister, I heard the word “effectively”. However, with all due respect to him, I do have one question.

Bill C-12 is indeed a step forward. Technically, no one in the House, not even our Conservative colleagues, can deny the realities of 2021.

There has been much talk of 2050. We would actually like to know what will happen in 2030, since there seems to be no desire to try and assess the targets.

Considering all the expertise he acquired in a previous life before he entered politics, what does the minister think of our position on this planet, which is dying because of greenhouse gases?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

I too find it alarming that one party in the House of Commons does not share our unease and concern about climate change.

With respect to Canada's international performance in the fight against climate change, I humbly confess that that is not only why I got into politics, but also why I joined the Liberal Party of Canada. For more than 25 years, I have been crusading for the environment and specifically for action on climate change.

I have seen governments come and go, here and elsewhere. I was impressed by what I saw from 2015 to 2019: carbon pricing, record-setting investments in public transit, transportation electrification and record-setting investments in nature-based solutions.

I would like to point out that, between 1992 and 2015, Canada managed to protect barely 2% of its marine areas. By 2019, that figure was around 19%. That all happened in four short years.

Nevertheless, we still have a lot to do. That is why we presented an even more ambitious action plan in December. As my colleague probably knows—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I apologize to the hon. minister, but I have to allow another member to ask a question. The minister could possibly add what he wanted to clarify.

The member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals talk about electrification, especially electric vehicles, and green technologies. I would like to ask the minister about his party. Back in 2015, the Prime Minister talked about how we had to transition out of manufacturing. In many respects, the auto industry has done that. How can the minister reconcile his party's plan?

Maybe he can tell us when was the last time Canada had a greenfield site. Maybe he can tell us why Canada does not have a battery plant. Could he tell us why Mexico and the United States are getting massive investments in new manufacturing, including Magna, a Canadian company that is not expanding its operations in Canada?

Perhaps the minister can explain why we are becoming dependent upon vehicle manufacturing of others instead of green, clean technology domestically, just like we are dependent upon vaccines from others right now? We are going to be completely dependent upon new lower-emission vehicles. Perhaps the minister can explain why the Liberal strategy is not producing any results and when Canada last had a greenfield site.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would beg to differ with the hon. member's characterization of what is happening in Canada.

Just a few months ago, there was an announcement by the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the Province of Ontario and Unifor, for the construction of North America's largest electric vehicle plant. Since then, we have heard more good news on this front. We are seeing a collaboration between the federal government and the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and many others, on the development of battery-powered vehicles. I could talk about the recent investment in Lion Electric, a Quebec company that produces electric school buses and all kinds of different types of trucks.

The member is right. He does have a point: It is an international race and Canada must be at the forefront of that race. If we do not do that, then we will become dependent. We are doing everything we can to ensure that Canada is at the forefront of this race. There is some very encouraging discussion with the new U.S. administration with respect to Canada-U.S. collaboration on electrification and on green technologies; conversations that unfortunately were not possible until just a few months ago.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to join the discussion today on Bill C-12. This is an issue of great importance for me as climate change is an urgent issue for me and for many of my constituents across the Kenora riding and of course, many Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

In northwestern Ontario, we have seen many environmental changes and challenges in recent years. There have been shorter and warmer winter seasons. There have been more sporadic weather patterns and changing behaviour of wildlife and these are all new realities that we must face. That is why I believe it is incredibly important that we work with Canadians and with industries to ensure that we are doing our part to aid in the global effort to preserve and protect our environment for future generations. I will speak to that in more detail shortly.

First, I want to address the bill directly as I believe that the title of the bill in itself is somewhat misleading to Canadians who may be watching at home or see the speech online. I believe the bill does very little to bring transparency and accountability to Canada's efforts of reaching net zero by 2050. I believe that the bill is a typical Liberal bill. It places accountability on future governments, not its own. Through nearly six years of the Liberal government, it spent the majority of time either pointing fingers and criticizing past governments or making commitments such as this one for future governments. The one thing that the Liberals failed to do is hold themselves accountable.

The bill proposes the goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, but there are very few details on how the government is planning to get there. The goal of net zero is something that our party shares with the current government. We also know that many Canadian industries share that goal and they are already on a path to reduce their emissions, diversify their operations and find innovative solutions to help Canada reach these goals. Again, the bill does not truly provide any support for those solutions. It is in many ways simply stating the target that they were planning to get to.

The government is already failing to meet its current climate commitment set for the year 2030. It is interesting that instead of taking action to reach the government's current goal, Liberals are now instead looking further down the road and committing to more aspirational goals. Unfortunately, given their track record thus far, I have very little faith in their ability to put Canada on track to meeting either the 2030 or 2050 targets.

Truly this is a government that has been big on promises and short on action on the environment. We know Liberals said they would plant two billion trees, but they have no plan to reach that target. They said they would put Canada on a path to reducing emissions, yet emissions continue to rise. They also continue to export non-recyclable Canadian waste abroad and in my riding they failed to take meaningful action to protect Lake of the Woods.

What is worse, the Liberals claim that they would balance economic activity with environmental protections, but even as they have been missing these environmental targets, they have done nothing to allow Canadian industry, which is some of the cleanest in the world, to thrive. We know that Canadian oil and gas holds itself to very high environmental standards and many in the industry are already committed to net zero by 2050.

Last year, I had the opportunity to visit Fort McMurray, Alberta. I was joined by the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka and others. I toured Suncor and I learned about the great work it is doing to supply clean and sustainable energy to the world and ensure that the environmental impacts of this are as minimal as possible. Suncor alone has planted over eight million trees as part of its reclamation programs and we know that is many more trees than the Liberals have been able to plant. That is in addition to the belated efforts of other energy companies that have similar programs. I believe overall that Canadian energy companies, often vilified by the Liberals, are actually doing more for the environment than the government itself.

The cement industry as well is taking ambitious steps to lower its emissions by transitioning to lower intensity, Portland Limestone Cement is investing hundreds of millions in low-carbon fuels. This is an industry that employs many in my riding and across the country.

I would like to talk about the forestry industry as well. It is a big employer in northwestern Ontario. It is taking a leadership role in helping Canada reach its low-carbon goals. Weyerhaeuser, which has an operation in Kenora, reduced its GHGs by 53% over the past two decades. It is becoming greener and more efficient every year. Resolute Forest Products, which has a mill in Ignace, has reduced its emissions by 83% compared to 2000 levels. Since 2010, only a decade ago, Domtar, which has an operation in Dryden, has seen its emissions decrease by nearly 20%. These are figures that the government could only dream of meeting itself.

If we look at the mining industry, which also employs many in my riding and is a major employer of first nations, it is taking great strides to reduce its environmental impact. Evolution, which has a mine in Balmertown, has increased by 11% the amount of water it is able to reuse. It is also continuing to take steps to reach its climate risk mitigation targets. Lastly, we know that clean, Canadian natural gas has the potential to lower global emissions by displacing less clean forms of energy and preventing carbon leakage abroad.

Canada's Conservatives recognize that industry must be at the table when we are talking about reaching net zero. We can lean on its expertise to help us reach our climate goals, while supplying the world with sustainable, ethically harvested natural resources. That is why it is so incredibly disappointing that the Liberals continue to take their cues from activists who are determined to destroy our industries instead of recognizing their environmental leadership.

The government has failed to address many environmental concerns and is on track to miss its targets. The government's only climate plan is to implement a tax redistribution scheme that makes life more difficult for hard-working, rural Canadians, and also lets big emitters off the hook.

I would like to take some time to discuss some of the tangible actions we must take to meet our targets. Primarily, we must incentivize and invest in innovative technologies to reduce emissions. We must incentivize Canadians to make their homes and their businesses more efficient and support industries as they make their operations cleaner and greener. We can do our part to reduce global emissions by supporting the responsible production of clean, Canadian energy and get it to international markets, reducing the world's reliance on coal and other high-intensity forms of energy.

We also need to continue to invest in conservation initiatives so future generations can continue to enjoy cleaner air, cleaner water and the beauty of our natural environment. We must not forget that it was under a Conservative government with former prime minister Brian Mulroney that we took decisive action on the acid rain crisis. I believe we now need a Conservative government with a similar vision to address the environmental questions of our time. That is exactly what we intend to do.

The Leader of the Opposition recently announced our climate plan. It is ambitious, but it is practical, with real targets and concrete steps to reach them. Under a Conservative government, Canada would embrace innovation, making real investments in the production of electric cars and trucks, as well as hydrogen vehicles. We would also invest $1 billion to deploy small modular reactors, a zero-emission source of electricity and heat across the country.

We would work with our neighbours to the south to establish North American standards for industry with border adjustments to prevent big emitters from outsourcing their emissions and their jobs to countries with lower environmental standards. We would place carbon border tariffs on goods imported from big polluters, like China, to ensure that we are holding all nations to the same standards that we set for ourselves. Additionally, we would invest $5 billion in carbon capture, utilization and storage to help our energy sector reduce emissions while continuing to provide high-paying jobs for Canadians.

I could go on, but I see that I am limited in time. I would like to say that Canada's Conservatives are going to move forward on this plan and many other things I cannot get to right now, but this is the plan that Canada needs as we seek to secure a greener future, not more empty rhetoric from the Liberals. If we want to combat the effects of climate change, Canada needs more than aspirational goals and empty words, but unfortunately, empty words are all that the Liberal bill provides.

Canadians deserve better and the world deserves better. For years, the Liberals have been spinning their wheels in the fight against climate change. Conservatives actually have a road map and we are ready to get in the driver's seat to implement it.

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

Madam Speaker, I really like this member. He speaks clearly, and he comes here and speaks what I believe to be his own mind, but I just cannot get over it when Conservatives routinely hark back to Brian Mulroney. That is like me taking credit for the formation of this country, because I happen to come from the same riding as Sir John A. Macdonald. The Conservative party of Brian Mulroney does not exist anymore. They need to stop invoking his name.

When the member talks about the ability of people to invest in their homes to make them more energy efficient, how does he think the new plan that is presented by the Conservative party accomplishes that? All it would do is put money into the bank accounts of people who are wealthy, people who can afford to do those renovations anyway. How does he propose their plan would help those who do not have the resources to retrofit their homes?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the member for Kingston and the Islands asking me questions and participating in the debate. We know he has a lot of thoughts and a lot of opinions he likes to share.

I would just say, with respect to the member, that we clearly disagree on the substance of the low-carbon savings account he was talking about. We know this is a measure that would keep more money in the pockets of Canadians. It would allow them to invest in greener technologies for themselves. It would not be a big government program that gives more revenue to the government and redistributes it across the country to those who have not been paying.

I stand by our plan. It is a credible and tangible plan that would help Canada reach its climate goals, and at the same time it would ensure we have more economic activity and more jobs than under the Liberal plan.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague, whom I very much appreciate and would like to acknowledge. He is a fine member, and I hear he works hard for his constituents every day.

I just heard the last question from our Liberal friend, who said that the Conservatives keep talking about Brian Mulroney. Well, the Liberals keep talking about Pierre Elliott Trudeau, so they should not be so quick to criticize.

Now that my colleague has been criticized for talking about Brian Mulroney, I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about what the current Prime Minister of Canada has done for climate change, now that he has been in office for six years.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will answer in English, because my colleague will probably actually understand me better than if I tried my French.

It is important to note, as I have said in my speech, that the current Prime Minister talks a very good game on climate change, but when it comes to delivering, he has really been absent. I do believe the government needs to do more to work with our industries and to work with those who are already doing great work to help Canada reach environmental goals, instead of vilifying them and making them out to be the enemy.

That is the approach I would like to see the government take, and that is the approach we will take under the next Conservative government.

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

Madam Speaker, I can see the good intentions in Bill C-12, but like any first draft, I think it needs some revisions.

We have identified some ways in committee that we would like to see some substantive amendments come forward: 2025 milestone target, more powers for the advisory committee and maybe separating some of the targets and the plans away from the minister's mandate.

Does the member have any suggestions to the House about some of the improvements and amendments he would like to see to this bill to make it substantially stronger than what we have right before us?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe there need to be binding targets on the government. I am not looking at 2030 or 2050. We need to ensure that we are doing our job to hold the government to account. Right now, I believe that is an important step, and I would add as well that we need to make sure the advisory body that is working with the government on this needs to have representatives from our energy industries and from natural resources, so that we can ensure we are leaning on their expertise and the innovation they have been working toward to help us reach our goals.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, or that the amendment be adopted on division, I would ask them to rise in their place and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask for a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 4, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:43 p.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, 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:

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I had technical difficulties and I would like my vote to be recorded as yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

According to the application, it was recorded as yea and then changed to nay. In order to change it right now, we will need the unanimous consent of the House to allow that to happen.

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #105

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #106

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)