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

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

moved 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.

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to address the House of Commons today for the second reading debate of Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. It is an act that I believe is extremely important.

Our government's highest priority continues to be the health and well-being of Canadians. That is why we are taking unprecedented action to combat the health emergency presented by COVID-19. As we come through this, and we will, that commitment to the health and well-being of Canadians demands that we put two things in place with an eye on the post-pandemic horizon.

First, we must build back better in a way that makes the economy more competitive, cleaner, stronger and fairer than it was before.

Second, Canadians expect us to have a thoughtful plan to counter a parallel emergency that has continued during the pandemic and will get significantly worse in future if we do not take more action than we are now, that being climate change.

Canadians know how much of a threat climate change is to our health, our economic well-being and our planet. We are already experiencing the ravages of climate change, what with extreme weather events, catastrophic floods and devastating fires.

As with COVID-19, ignoring the risks of climate change is not an option. Such an approach will only increase costs and worsen the long-term consequences. To use a pandemic metaphor, if we want to flatten the climate curve and avoid its worst effects, the best available science tells us that the planet must reach net zero by 2050.

Reaching net zero by 2050 means that emissions produced 30 years from now would be fully absorbed through actions that scrub carbon from the atmosphere, whether through nature, such as planting trees or through technology, such as carbon capture and storage systems. This imperative comes at a time when the world is changing. We are seeing an acceleration of global momentum and healthy competition toward a net-zero carbon economy by 2050 as nations, investors and consumers recognize the ecological imperative and the economic opportunity of moving to a clean economy.

Over 120 countries have made a commitment to be net zero by 2050, including many of our major economic competitors and trading partners. This will likely soon include our biggest trading partner south of the border. Low carbon and climate-resilient projects and technologies are not just good for the planet, they are good for business.

Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, recently said that the transition to net zero “...is creating the greatest commercial opportunity of our age.” On the day before Bill C-12 was introduced in this House, Tiff Macklem, the current Governor of the Bank of Canada, said that “...we need to position Canada to seize the climate-smart opportunities that consumers, workers and investors are looking for.”

Major Canadian companies have already committed to net zero by 2050, including companies such as Cenovus, Teck Resources, MEG Energy, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Enbridge and the Canadian Steel Producers Association. Shell's global chief executive officer says that net zero is “the only way to go” for his company. Canadian companies such as Maple Leaf Foods and CAE are already carbon neutral.

Leveraging climate action as we rebuild Canada's post-pandemic economy is simply the smart thing to do. It will ensure that we emerge stronger, better prepared and more competitive in a low-carbon world.

During the last election campaign, our government promised to come up with a plan that would allow Canada to exceed its pollution reduction targets and create a legally binding process for all future governments to set national climate targets that will achieve the science-based goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, is the fulfillment of our commitment to Canadians to put these legally binding processes in place.

This process is essential to our strategy for a sustainable post-pandemic economic recovery and long-term prosperity for all Canadians in a low-carbon world. It reflects our government's desire to stimulate our collective ambition for climate action and to do more than ever before in a considered and pragmatic way, guided by scientific data and evidence.

The proposed Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act is an important contribution to articulating a Canadian vision for a clean economy, and it sends a signal of the depth of our resolve to be a serious competitor in the clean global marketplace.

To do that, we need to tool up for low-carbon advantage and demonstrate that Canada is meeting climate risk head-on. By doing so, we can provide the confidence and certainty required to attract investment and ensure that Canadians are delivering products and services that will be in high demand the world over now and well into the future.

The bill marks the first time a Canadian government has introduced emissions accountability legislation to address climate change and achieve net zero by 2050. One element of its importance is that accountability legislation has the muscle to depoliticize climate action by setting legal requirements on governments to achieve climate headway. It is intended to ensure that never again will Canada have a government like that of Stephen Harper, which established an emissions reduction target but never brought forward a credible plan to achieve it.

The Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act would be the first significant step in the second phase of our government's climate plan. In phase one, during our first term in government, we spearheaded the creation of a pan-Canadian framework to fight climate change that comprised over 50 separate initiatives, including a price on pollution, a plan to phase out coal by 2030 and historic investments in public transit, nature and renewables.

In the coming weeks, the government will be announcing an enhanced clean-growth plan and further investments that encourage, accelerate and support the work Canadian businesses are doing to move to a thriving carbon-neutral economy. The plan will also provide Canadians with visibility on how we will meet and exceed our 2030 Paris Agreement target.

Bill C-12 provides the legal framework to put the emissions reductions goal of that plan and future plans between now and the middle of the century into law. The act would provide a legally binding process for this government and for future governments to set national climate targets on a rolling basis every five years between 2030 and 2050 and to meet the goal of net zero by 2050.

It would provide that this government and future governments must bring forward detailed plans as to how they would meet these targets. In the near term, Bill C-12 would require the Government of Canada to establish the initial 2030 target within six months of the act's coming into force, along with an emissions reduction plan. Both would have to be tabled in Parliament.

A progress report would have to be tabled by 2027. If the government of the day is not on track to meet the 2030 milestone, it would have to detail how it will get back on track. In addition, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, supported by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, would have to examine and report on the Government of Canada's implementation of the measures aimed at mitigating climate change within five years of the coming into force of this act and every five years thereafter.

For each subsequent milestone year, in 2035, 2040 and 2045, a target would have to be set and an emissions reduction plan established at least five years in advance of each subsequent milestone year. Both would have to be tabled in Parliament.

Finally, if a target is not met, the government would have to table a report in Parliament detailing the reasons why and identifying specific actions to correct course and catch-up.

Bill C-12 also requires the Minister of Finance to publish an annual report explaining how the government is managing its financial risks and opportunities related to climate change. This information will help the government manage the risks of climate change in its decision-making.

This is in addition to our current reporting requirements, including the fifth biennial report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the official national greenhouse gas inventory that we publish every year.

The five-year targets and the plans for meeting them will be based on the best scientific information available. They will require an inclusive approach that reflects Canada's unique demographics and geography, the importance of our resource-based economy, and the governments' shared responsibility for energy and the environment.

The input and engagement from all parts of Canadian society are crucial. The Government of Canada simply cannot achieve net-zero emissions by the middle of the century on its own. That is why the act would establish the independent net-zero advisory body, a group of up to 15 experts with a diverse range of experience and expertise from across the country. It would include business, labour, indigenous, clean technology and environmental leaders.

The advisory body's ongoing advice to government over the next 30 years would be informed by extensive consultation and engagement with Canadians. Its initial work would focus on identifying actions that support both net zero and economic recovery from the pandemic. The advisory body would provide its advice through an annual public report, and the government would be required to publicly respond to the advisory body's recommendations.

All of the public reporting measures are designed to ensure accountability to Canadians and accountability built on transparency, both of which are vital to establishing credibility with Canadians. Moreover, transparency and accountability are key to fostering dialogue when friction arises on the ways and means of moving forward on climate change. Bill C-12 lays out a framework of accountability and transparency to ensure we reach net zero by 2050 in a way that gives Canadians confidence that as a nation we will succeed in this endeavour.

Should the bill pass, it will be extremely difficult for any future government to shirk its responsibility to take action on climate change. I believe the reaction in Parliament and among Canadians generally would provide severe sanction to a government that did not honour its legal obligations under the act.

I want to say a few words about the parliamentary process.

It takes co-operation and collaboration to bring about real change, and several parties in the House of Commons have proven their commitment to ambitious climate action, including the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party and even some Conservative members.

I want to congratulate the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for her work on Bill C-215 and the member for Winnipeg Centre for her work on Bill C-232. These bills are part of a long line of bills introduced in an effort to address this problem.

It is important to recognize the contribution made by Jack Layton, who was the first to introduce his bill, the climate change accountability act, in 2007. Unfortunately, that bill was defeated by Conservative senators 10 years ago to the day last month, without debate, despite majority support in the House of Commons.

I would also like to commend the work of my colleague, the government House leader, who managed to get his private member's bill, the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, passed in 2007, before the Harper government repealed it in 2011 and withdrew from the Kyoto protocol.

In developing the bill, I have reflected on the hard work done by my colleagues in the House and on the work of those who came before us. It is certainly my hope that they see their work and devotion reflected in the spirit and intent of Bill C-12. I am committed to taking an approach of co-operation and collaboration and will consider, in good faith, constructive suggestions to improve this legislation further. That is how the parliamentary process is supposed to work, and I am committed to doing my part to make it work.

I am confident that together, in the spirit of co-operation, we can achieve an outcome that allows us to continue to move another step forward to address the threat of climate change. I have engaged in constructive conversations with many of my parliamentary colleagues on moving forward with action to address climate change, and it is my hope that we can work together to pass the bill in this minority Parliament so that we can quickly move forward on its implementation.

At the end of the day, climate change is a science issue, not an issue of ideology. It should not be a partisan issue. It is my hope that MPs from all parties in the House will work together and collectively support this vital legislation.

As a nation, we cannot afford inaction. It certainly will require resources. It will also require pragmatism and, certainly, Canadian ingenuity.

Canada has the tools to do this, including a skilled and innovative workforce that is already rising to the challenge of emissions reduction. From copper to nickel to energy, Canada has the resources needed to develop, produce and deploy clean technologies and proven expertise. We have a productive and resilient manufacturing sector. We also have the innovative spirit, talent and experience to be among the world's cleanest suppliers of natural resources, and we have the drive, born of a chance, to create a future we can pass along to our children and grandchildren with confidence and with pride.

I am sure that many colleagues, as well as their children, nieces, nephews and grandchildren, have watched some of Sir David Attenborough's programs on the the natural world. One of his comments resonated strongly with me. He said, “We are the only species that can imagine the future. Living in balance with nature simply requires the will to do so.”

The bill represents a key step in demonstrating our collective will to do so, and I very much look forward to engaging with my colleagues today and in the days to come as we move forward with this very important legislation.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his outreach in terms of cross-collaboration.

I would like to ask him this in that spirit: Would he be willing to commit today to putting industry representation from the oil and gas sector on his advisory panel?

Also, while I am on my feet, will the minister commit to amendments to recognize, in the bill, the contributions of Canadian energy, not just in terms of history, but in terms of the future?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will say a couple of things.

First, it is certainly my intention to announce the advisory panel in the near term. It will be drawn, as I said during my remarks, from across the country and from a range of different experiences. Some of those will be industry experiences and some will be environmentally based. Some will be indigenous leaders. There will be a range of experiences, which is exactly as things should be in the context of looking to have a body that brings forward advice on this important legislation.

Second, with respect to specific proposals, I will certainly review proposals for the bill that are brought forward at committee. I am not going to specify which proposals will proceed or not, as that is a function of the work the committee will be doing. However, I encourage members from all parties to bring forward thoughts and ideas about how they think the bill can be strengthened.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech and his kind words. It is always a pleasure to work with him.

I watched Mr. Attenborough's latest documentary, which is quite powerful and shows us the importance of passing legislation on this issue.

It is great that the bill has set 2050 as a target for achieving net-zero emissions, but I think that it is crucial to have meaningful checkpoints for the next 10 years, which is a very critical time for the climate crisis. On the way to 2030 and 2050, we will inevitably go through 2025. I would therefore like to know why the minister did not include 2025 as a target in the bill.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and for her work.

Of course it is very important that the legislation provide accountability and transparency, and indeed there are some accountability mechanisms in the bill. The Paris targets must be met by 2030, but of course we must have mechanisms to ensure that our government and subsequent governments will be accountable and transparent.

If the hon. member has any suggestions or recommendations, I would be prepared to discuss them in committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister of Environment for introducing the bill, and I appreciate his acknowledgement of the work that the late Jack Layton did 14 years ago when he first introduced his bill to establish those accountability measures.

If we look back 10 years, 2010 seems like a lifetime ago, and if we look ahead to 2030, it seems like a lifetime away. The point I am trying to make here is that the next 10 years are going to be so incredibly important to how we deal with climate change, really determining how we are going to face life on this planet, depending on the actions we take.

I want to press the minister on the 2025 year and the targets we would like to see. If such suggestions do come up at committee, because I am pretty sure they will, would he be amenable to establishing 2025 as the year we need to take a look at and measure the government's targets against?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would say a few things.

As the member will have read the bill, the bill has robust accountability measures. The 2030 target is structured around the architecture of Paris, where the vast majority of countries that are party to Paris are focused on 2030. There are certainly important elements in our existing and, certainly, future climate plans that relate to 2025, which certainly are visible and transparent. Certainly, we are open to conversations about how we ensure that people have visibility about how we are tracking with respect to progress to 2030.

However, as I said, I am not going to prejudge the work of the committee. I am open to conversations that the committee will have, and I look forward to the discussions that take place there.

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. minister, he cannot pick and choose what parts of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change science gets baked into the bill and what parts of the Paris Agreement he now refers to. I want to make it very clear that I was in Paris. I was there when we negotiated. It is very clear that the target for Canada for 2030 was to be ratcheted up and changed in calendar year 2020. We are expected, as a nation with a 2030 target, to have a new one in place by the end of the calendar year. That is the Paris decision document.

It is also very clear that, if we are going to be grounded in science, it is true that IPCC says that we must have net carbon neutrality by 2050, but to get there they also tell us that, globally, emissions must be cut by at least 45% no later than 2030. In other words, the heavy lifting in reducing emissions in this country must be done before the first target milestone year in this legislation.

I cannot vote for this bill as it now is, and I desperately want to vote for it. I appreciate—

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

I am sorry. I have to give the minister the opportunity to answer.

The hon. minister.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly thank the member for her commitment to this important issue.

As I have said in the remarks today and also in conversations that she and I have had, we certainly do intend to bring forward an enhanced climate plan. That is something that I have said very publicly. To her initial point, absolutely, yes we do intend to move forward with an enhanced plan, building on the great work that was done in the pan-Canadian framework, and certainly we intend to move forward in a manner that will enable Canada to be an important participant in the international conversations on climate change. We are committed to that and we will continue to move forward in that direction.

However, I would also say that this bill is an important step forward. I think that if the member looks at the reaction from many in not simply industry or labour organizations but environmental organizations, including Ecojustice, the David Suzuki Foundation, Équiterre and a whole range of others, she will see this is an important step forward.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his leadership. How will this unprecedented legislation and its legally binding requirements help spur the development of emissions-free industries like the SMR sector and the creation of sustainable, well-paying green jobs?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, this sets the architecture in terms of requiring and legally binding governments to be transparent and accountable with respect to moving down the curve to net zero by 2050. As we do that, we are requiring detailed plans be put into place and in order to actually meet that 2050 target and certainly to meet every target along the way, it will have to be plans that involve how we are actually getting at every major source of emissions in this country. Certainly that will need to involve thoughts around zero-emitting technologies, whether those are wind, solar, geothermal, hydro or potentially SMRs, but it is a whole range of those kinds of things, which also involve conversations around hydrogen and carbon capture. It involves—

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

We will have one last question by the hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the question that my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands asked, which had to do with the Paris targets. I was in Paris when the Paris Agreement was signed, and I remember the Liberal government signing on to what it called the Harper targets, which were basically the floor that was going to be ratcheted up very quickly in time to meet the 2030 targets. Every credible organization out there has made it very clear that the Liberal government is not meeting those 2030 Paris targets.

Is it still the minister's plan to meet those targets? Can he explain why every single organization is suggesting that the government will never meet those 2030 targets?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is simply not true. The government identified a large chunk of the megatonnes needed to meet those targets in the pan-Canadian framework. The next chunk of those megatonnes to meet and exceed the 2030 targets is something we will be discussing with Canadians in the coming weeks. I look forward to that conversation with my hon. friend.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and debate the people's business, and Bill C-12 is a critically important debate. Last week as parliamentarians we received a 13-minute briefing on the bill with zero opportunity to ask questions and to have those questions answered. We have to ask, why was that? Why was there no opportunity to ask questions? This is a bill that the Prime Minister describes as an accountability framework, and on the very first day we are being denied the simple most important part of being accountable: the right to ask questions.

I have read the bill and much of the media coverage, and on that note I have to give the Liberal government full credit for its media rollout on the bill. Many headlines read “A road map to net-zero emissions,” which is rather fascinating because while the bill is clear on where it would like to go, it is completely void of any actual detail on how to get there. In fact, if it were a map, it would simply show where we wanted to be but no map or trails on how to get there. That is kind of the point, is it not?

In typical Liberal fashion, this bill will not hold the current government accountable for climate failures, only future governments. The easiest promises to make are those that do not require the maker to be held accountable, and that is exactly what the Liberals are doing.

The Liberals continue to promise both too much and too little when it comes to climate change. Their approach is obviously not working. The Liberal government's projections show that the government is not even close to keeping its current commitments, and yet it plans to set new, even higher targets to be met down the road.

Let us take a look back in history. If we go back about 27 years, in 1993, former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% relative to 1988 levels by 2005. What happened to those promises? They were broken. There are others.

Let us go to 1997 when Prime Minister Chrétien signed the Kyoto accord. This promise was to reduce our emission levels by a smaller amount of 6% below 1990 levels. That would be achieved by 2012. What happened to that promise? In 2006, when the Liberals were voted out of office, Canada was 30% over that commitment. As a result, we know that former prime minister Stephen Harper eventually had to withdraw Canada from the Kyoto agreement because we could not reach that target.

Let us not forget that in 2009, at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, Prime Minister Harper matched the U.S. target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 30% by 2030 in what was a non-binding agreement. In 2015, shortly after the election of the current Prime Minister, he sent the largest Canadian delegation in history to attend the Paris UN Climate Change Conference and at excess cost, I would say, of $1 million.

We all know that in Paris, despite often criticizing the former Harper government, ultimately the Liberal government adopted the same targets. Despite what partisan Liberals and others say, Conservative governments, both federally and provincially, have a long record of practical and successful environmental initiatives.

Let us now look at where we are today. Reports indicate that the Liberal government did not keep the commitments it made in 2015. It has missed its 2020 target by 123 million tonnes. Once again, we are not meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Obviously, the government is following a pattern: It promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a certain amount by a certain date and then it breaks that promise. It makes another promise and then it breaks that one too.

Now, there are new developments. Today, we are examining Bill C-12. This bill once again postpones addressing the problem to such an extent that it will be up to whatever government is in office in 2050 to deal with it.

The government is going to have a problem with the bill's strongest opponents precisely over that.

The government is not proposing anything at all today. It has no road map, no solution, no willingness to listen and no penalties in case of failure.

Once again, they are promising to do more later.

At this point, I probably sound quite negative about the bill. That is not actually my intent. I just firmly believe that when we debate the bill, we must be very candid about what is really up for debate, as it is certainly not a road map as some have described it. I will actually give the Liberal government some credit for that, because it did not follow the usual approach of the Prime Minister, which is to promise things he has no intention of delivering on. We know the Prime Minister is an expert at making promises he will never have to be responsible for. Setting targets 30 years down the line means that future governments have 30 years to figure it out. More importantly, industry has the time to come up with much-needed solutions.

Indeed, the Minister of Natural Resources has spoken of improving energy efficiency in homes and businesses. He has talked about hydrogen fuel cells, as well as the potential for small modular nuclear reactors, although I will note on the last point that once again the Liberal government has delayed promised plans and details on that. The point is that what the bill would do, by making commitments so far in the future, is leave the door open for future innovation. We know that we will see more electric vehicles in our future, some built right here in Canada, a made in Canada solution.

There is a company in British Columbia that could soon be transporting passengers in the world's first electric seaplane.

These are all exciting examples of the kind of innovation that can reduce our emissions. I am pleased that ourMinister of Natural Resources has recognized some of them. Personally, as environment critic, I love it when we can all agree on areas where we can use innovation rather than fiscal measures to reduce our emissions. We will not prosper as a nation by taxing ordinary Canadians and making industry foot the bill for costly regulations. That may be the Liberal way, but it is not the right way.

When I agreed to serve as the environment and climate change critic, our new official opposition leader was clear. He pledged to recognize the importance of ensuring that Canada meets its greenhouse gas emission commitments. If we want to do that, we all have to work together on areas where we can come to an agreement. I believe that much of our time in the previous Parliament was spent talking about issues on which we disagree. When we do that, we are not serving the interests of future Canadians.

The reality is, from my perspective, there is really nothing to oppose in this bill. In many respects, it is a Seinfeld bill. It is largely devoid of details or costs. In fact, I suspect that those who will be opposing this bill will do so for that very reason. Canadians agree on the importance of protecting our environment and natural spaces. It is an issue that our party and leader are passionate about.

In my speech thus far, I have not mentioned the Canadian oil and gas industry, much as this bill is also largely silent on this essential Canadian industry. We know this industry has publicly stated it is committed to the highest environmental standards in the world, and many of its members have committed to net zero by 2050. We need to ensure that these critically important Canadian industries will be part of the solution.

We will be proposing amendments to this bill in committee that clearly state that Canadian oil and gas has the highest environmental standards in the world, and that any action plan must draw on that expertise and ensure that oil and gas play a necessary role in providing the world with energy. This legislation must also recognize that Canadian energy is not the enemy, as many Liberals believe, but part of the solution. As I mentioned previously, we need to find ways that we can work together if we are to succeed.

We also need a mechanism that can, over time, figure out how much it will cost Canadians to remain on that path to net-zero emissions by 2050. The Parliamentary Budget Officer indicated that, in order to meet our current commitments by 2030, the carbon tax might have to increase to over $200 a tonne, but the Liberals still refuse to be honest with Canadians about that.

I know some people will say that it will cost a lot more to do nothing. However, consider for example someone on a fixed annual income who lives in a 70-year-old house when winter temperatures fall below -20°C. Their monthly heating bill could force them to choose between heat and groceries for the month. We cannot ignore this. We cannot ignore the fact that many rural communities do not have public transit. In many cases, they have lost Greyhound as a private carrier.

Millions of Canadians depend on imported fuel oil to heat their homes because no other options are available. We cannot forget about those Canadians, and they should not be forced to carry a disproportionate share of the cost burden.

I mention this because when it comes to putting a price on pollution, as the current Liberal government likes to say, we know that all too often some of the biggest industrial polluters typically get exemptions from the price they pay on their pollution because of carbon leakage, which is a big concern.

What is carbon leakage, for those unfamiliar with the term? When an industry in one jurisdiction is paying carbon taxes and cannot compete with that same industry in another jurisdiction that is not paying carbon taxes, the situation is called carbon leakage. We know that if an industry loses market share to heavier-polluting competitors, it affects our economy and does not reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

Carbon leakage is not the only example of where big polluters get a break from paying a price on pollution. In British Columbia, although the B.C. NDP government signed on to the Liberals' carbon tax framework, the new B.C. LNG investment will be exempt from the carbon tax increases called for in that agreement. This is not an isolated incident where a polluting industry in B.C. has secured some form of carbon tax relief.

Why am I raising these points? Because we cannot ignore the fact that more and more major polluters in Canada are being exempted from paying the price for their pollution.

These carbon tax exemptions rarely make the headlines for various reasons, but they do happen. However, the average citizen or the small business owner has to pay for their pollution.

This brings me to the last, but not least, part of my speech on this bill. Since it will take 30 years to meet the targets, we have an opportunity to try to work with our biggest trading partner, the United States. Hopefully, we will have a clearer idea of the policies and regulations required to help us collectively reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

These emissions are a global problem. Climate change has had devastating effects on many sectors in my riding over the past year. Forest fires and floods have caused hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage. Local farmers have been hard hit by changing weather patterns. I am sure that other members in the House have had similar experiences.

Canada is not responsible for global climate change, but we can and must be part of the solution.

It may raise some eyebrows that my party will be supporting this bill at second reading, but if we are going to have any success, we need to find those things that we can agree upon and take action. There are things we can and must agree on.

In summary, I see very little in this bill to oppose. It is not a road map. It is essentially a piece of paper with a destination on it. Fighting climate change at home and around the world is an important goal that requires work. It will be current and future governments that will start to fill in the map and show how they intend to reach that destination, but we must agree on a starting point. I would submit that is precisely what Bill C-12 is: a starting point.

I, for one, will be supporting this bill for what it is, and what it can and must become. What I do not support is the Liberals' failed record on climate change. They are on track to miss their 2030 climate commitments, and they have failed to plant a single tree. My wife has planted more trees than the current government.

The Liberals continue to over-promise and under-deliver when it comes to climate change, and their approach is clearly not working. Conservatives will build a climate policy that respects the jurisdiction of the provinces, focuses on making industry pay rather than taxing ordinary Canadians, and is founded on proven market-based principles for incentivizing positive economic change. Conservatives understand that reaching net-zero is a goal that Canadians care about and want to see action on. We must preserve our shared environment for future generations without sacrificing the jobs Canadians need today or damaging the economic engine that helps fund our vital social programs. Canadian workers are counting on it.

I would like to thank all members for taking the time to hear my comments today.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague and friend's remarks. I am glad to see that he will be supporting the bill. He should not worry, because the trees will get planted. There is no question about that. I was informed about it this morning. We are pretty near there.

The member talked a little about Canadian energy, and I agree with him on that point. Those who communicated, who managed to seize the communication agenda, failed to recognize how many gains the energy industry in Canada has made. We are not going to move ahead and find a solution, in my view, if we do not bring the energy industry and the environment industry together in parallel.

The member mentioned the U.S. I think that is another place where we, in this country, make a mistake. We tend to look at what Washington does, and it does not do very much lately. I chair the Canada-U.S. inter-parliamentary group, and it just does not. It is not getting anything done.

At the state level, the U.S. is making progress. They are ahead of us in many sectors, and on greenhouse gas reductions in many states. We have to focus on the end result. That is what this bill does: It sets the stage. We have further meat to put on the bones, there is no question about that.

However, I am pleased the member is supportive. Does the member have any other ideas that we should be using to put meat on the bones?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Malpeque for the work that he does to make sure Canada-U.S. relations are maintained.

I would like to go back to my speech. I talked about this bill being a starting point. The really unfortunate part about this bill is that the government is putting the onus on future governments. The first time it actually has to be accountable and reply as to whether it has made progress will be in 2030. Maybe the hon. member will be here in 2030, but I certainly hope the Liberal government will not be here in 2030.

That is to say that this is more of a starting point, and I look forward to what the minister said, in terms of bringing in the action plan so that we can evaluate that.

To be absolutely clear, I am just going to make a recommendation to the member. He is much more experienced than I, but it is a really bad idea to be planting trees at this time of year.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As much as we often disagree, we can also agree.

I agree with him when he says that we must work together to improve this bill. I agree with him when he says that the oil and gas industry must play a role in getting to net-zero emissions. In fact, it is this very industry that must make the transition. Quebec and Canadian taxpayers' money must be used for the energy transition and to create good, green jobs for our friends out west.

Since my colleague is not satisfied with Bill C-12 and the government's climate change ambitions, will he commit to voting for Bill C-215, the bill I introduced on climate change accountability?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken on the member's bill, and I certainly appreciate her intervention today and her advocacy to represent her province. I want to represent my province as well.

I would simply say that this is, as I said, a bit of a Seinfeld bill. It is a bill about nothing. There is some reporting that it needs to have happen at certain junctures.

What we want to start with today, and I asked the minister this earlier, is with the minister acknowledging that oil and gas not only have a tremendous history and have made a tremendous contribution to our social, economic, fiscal and technological base in this country, but they have a strong future. The government has to factor those in.

I want the bill to be amended to specifically cite that. I also want the minister to say that Canadian energy will be part of the decision-making and the advice that he will be receiving. We are a long way from Calgary and we are a long way from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and we need to be in sync with them. They are the ones that are going to be putting in the real work, the real technology that will help us make our 2030 and 2050 targets.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my neighbour for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola for his history of the complete inaction of previous governments, both Liberal and Conservative, on climate action. He mentioned the carbon tax in British Columbia. That was brought in by the B.C. Liberals, a party I know he supports.

Getting back to the federal Liberals, they have had five years to do something about climate action. They have been talking a lot, and now they come up with a bill that says we will not have a target until 2030. They have been here for five years. Why do they not have a target for 2025 and why do they not have it now? They are not even going to make a 2030 target for the next six months.

I would ask the member if the Conservatives will support the NDP in calling for an amendment to make a 2025 target part of the bill?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate my neighbour and respect the people he serves. I was once a representative for that area.

Upon taking office, the B.C. NDP did make major changes, structural changes, to the LNG industry, specifically lowering taxes, so it could start that industry, and I agree with that. Sometimes we need to make it really juicy for industry to put in big money for a long-term benefit, not just to British Columbia with respect to investment but to Canada as well. It is also to get the cleanest LNG in the world out to market to displace dirty coal, and that is a really important thing.

The member seems to think that somehow I know what is on the Liberal minister's mind. He seems to think that the minister and I are somehow in sync. The member should probably ask those questions of the Liberal government rather than to me.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to listen to my colleague's excellent speech. It strikes me, in the context of this debate, that we as the Conservatives really are the only truly national party. We are trying to bring Canadians together from all parts of the country. The Liberals have no representation in the west. We have parties that only run candidates in some regions. There are different forces that are trying to say that the aspirations of the west are irreconcilable with the aspirations of other Canadians.

As Conservatives, we believe we can have a strong, united country that respects all our industries, that understands the importance of defending the environment, of having a strong energy sector, of defending the French language and of bringing our country together from coast to coast.

I wonder if the member has a comment on the particular role we are playing in Parliament, taking a nuanced approach to these issues and trying to bring our country together.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member raises rightly a big concern. Many people are concerned about where they will get their paycheques to put food on the table in many places in Alberta, Saskatchewan and even parts of Manitoba.

We expect more from the government to ensure that all provinces and territories are not just respected but that their workers are as well. I expect the government, especially when the minister says he will collaborate with other parties, to take our suggestions not just to heart but put them in the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a red-letter day for climate legislation when the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola will vote for it and I cannot.

Is the member now prepared to agree that we need carbon pricing? As the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay pointed out a moment ago, we have had carbon pricing in British Columbia, and it came in from a right-wing government.

Carbon pricing actually emanates from right-wing think tanks in the U.S. It does work. We need carbon pricing. Will the hon. member support the current efforts of the current government?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, if I had another 20 minutes for my speech, I certainly would have touched on that.

The fact is that when the government brought in its national carbon tax, it hid the cost. One of the areas I would like to see in any potential action plan, particularly, is the fiscal and social economic impacts, basically, what is the bill and who will pay it?

Unfortunately, those men and women have been in office for well over five years and they have yet to be transparent with Canadians or their representatives. This is just another—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and talk about the environment and climate change. I was eager to see this bill tabled. We waited a long time for it.

At the Bloc Québécois, we even took the initiative and tabled our own climate accountability bill, Bill C-215, which we debated here in the House a few weeks ago and which seems to have a few more teeth than Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada’s efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.

Let us talk about Bill C-12. There are several interesting terms in it, like “transparency”, “accountability” and “net-zero emissions”. I have to admit, it is certainly a good first step. The government is taking this further than probably any other government before it. However, the reality is that, when you read the bill, you soon realize that it is nowhere near sufficient to address the climate emergency.

I will say it right out of the gate: Bill C-12 is dishearteningly tame. It needs to be more binding. If the Liberals are serious in their desire to protect the environment, ensure a green future for the next generation, implement a fair, green economic recovery plan, put an end to the cycle of broken promises and missed targets on greenhouse gas reductions and respect their commitment made around the Paris Agreement, they will surely be open to amending and enhancing the bill to make it more binding.

The emergency is real, and the health and financial crisis we are experiencing should not be an excuse for setting aside the climate crisis and the measures required to address it. Canada’s performance in reducing greenhouse gases leaves much to be desired. I would even say that it is embarrassing. Canada has never met its targets. It had to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol and will likely not meet the Paris Agreement targets. If it could, the government would have put that in the bill and shown more boldness and ambition. It would perhaps have been a little less concerned about 2050 and a little more about 2030. It would certainly be more concerned about the importance of meeting our international commitments than honouring its own election promises.

Climate change should not be a partisan issue. Unfortunately, that is what we are seeing with this bill. During the 2019 election campaign, the Liberals promised to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and they are repeating that promise with this bill, without telling us how they are going to do it.

I want to act in good faith, but Bill C-12 is so easy to criticize, even for the government. According to Environment Canada’s most optimistic projections, we will miss the 2030 target. We must stop burying our heads in the sand; Canada will not achieve its emission reduction target of 30% by 2030. We are a whopping 77 megatonnes short, even if we take into account the impact of the reduction measures that have been announced.

When you are about to miss a target, your logical priority should be to do everything in your power to quickly rectify the situation, reverse course and preach by example. The Bloc Québécois is not the only one to say this; environmental groups are saying the same thing. The Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique says that the bill is extremely vague and not particularly binding, and that it shows that the Government of Canada has not done the work since 2015. Like us, they are still waiting for a serious and responsible commitment on the part of the Liberal government.

We are hearing the same thing from the Climate Action Network, Ecojustice, Environmental Defence Canada, the West Coast Environmental Law Association and Équiterre, although I am not naming any names.

I will say it again: Canada failed to meet any of its international climate targets. In its current form, Bill C-12 provides very little guarantee that this trend will change.

We know that we want to move toward a net-zero economy and way of life, but we still do not know how to get there. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that it will take more than one or two somewhat stringent measures to get there. For now, we have no idea whether the most polluting industries will have targets to meet, which is regrettable, whether we are moving toward the electrification of transportation or whether we will support some form of circular economy. We do not know any of this because there is no plan.

With Bill C-12, the Liberals are asking us to vote on a plan we have not seen yet. For now, what we know is that we will probably achieve net-zero emissions in 2050, even if we do not really know what that looks like.

Now is the time for concrete measures that will actually help reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

The bill must ensure real accountability, not only for meeting the targets that are already on the table, but for aligning Canada with the Paris Agreement and its ultimate goal of limiting average global warming to 1.5°C.

It is crucial that Canada have a five-year accountability cycle, that it start in 2025, not 2030 or 2050, and that it align with the Paris Agreement’s five-year inventory cycle and its goal of raising the stakes. That is the demand of every environmental group worth its salt and every individual who believes in the need for energy transition to ensure our survival on this planet.

I have trouble understanding the government’s lack of ambition and initiative with respect to Bill C-12. We should be past the point where we need to plan for an energy transition. In fact, we should be making the transition now, because 2050 is in the future.

We have to be realistic; the solution to the economic, health and climate emergencies does not lie in the perpetuation of an oil-based economy. We need to invest in natural resource processing, research and innovation in our institutions and the production of our own clean, renewable energy.

We must admit that Quebec has a lot to offer in this area. That is where our wealth lies; Canada’s wealth lies elsewhere. That is why, we in the Bloc Québécois think that the government should provide substantial assistance for the energy and economic transition of certain provinces toward a sustainable wealth creation model.

Economic development based on green technologies, such as biomass, wind and solar energy, hydroelectricity and geothermal energy can sustainably fuel progress and it can certainly be used as a model.

The Bloc Québécois can propose a number of concrete measures. In this bill, we would have liked to see a plan outlining concrete measures for achieving our goals.

I want to get back to the Climate Action Network. I could not agree more with their desire to decarbonize the economy. It is an interesting concept that is now more relevant than ever. People often say that the environment should go hand in hand with the economy; you cannot have one without the other.

I had an interesting conversation recently with Paul Fauteux, an environmental lawyer who was the director general of Environment Canada’s Climate Change Bureau and co-head of the Canadian delegation to the international negotiations on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. He is an optimist, but he is disappointed with the government’s inaction. We were discussing the fact that we should not be afraid of the energy transition and that we should not see it as bad for the economy or as a destroyer of high-paying jobs.

The opposite is true. Moving away from fossil fuels will result in net gains in employment. Whether for installing solar panels or renovating homes to adapt them to climate change and make them more energy efficient, the potential is huge.

However, decarbonizing the economy does not only mean that we are trading oil industry jobs for jobs in the solar and wind energy industry. We can build a low-carbon caring economy.

Some members may be wondering what a caring economy is. It is an economy where we care for the planet as much as we care for each other. The lowest-carbon jobs are the ones that do not extract anything from the land, that do not create any new waste and that have a limited impact on the environment. These jobs, often performed by women, need to be more highly valued. This work of caring for the most vulnerable members of our communities must be better understood. As part of our economic transition, care work needs to be become a good job, with union benefits, fair pay and safety protections.

Last Sunday, Laure Waridel, an associate professor with the Institute of Environmental Sciences at the Université du Québec à Montréal, said that it will take profound change, binding measures, systematic measures, because we are at the point where we have to completely transform the economy.

We are driven by development. This development brings in money, of course, but it is costly in terms of greenhouse gases. There is a cost, not just an environmental one, but also a social one, and that is fundamental.

The problem is that we are individualistic and think only of ourselves. The government is certainly not setting a good example. We need to stop working in isolation. We need to join forces. That is how we will build a society that is a bit greener and a bit fairer. In fact, I hope it will be a lot greener and fairer.

For that to happen, we need a government that can put partisanship aside and stop with the hypocrisy. It needs to walk the talk, as we say. A government cannot claim it wants to achieve net-zero emissions and in the same breath say that it will make the Keystone XL pipeline a priority in its relations with the United States. That makes no sense. It is literally an example of saying one thing but doing another. The government needs to choose between investing in the future and driving straight into a wall. I am sure members would agree that the right choice is to invest in the future. However, this cannot happen without real measures to reduce our carbon footprint.

Even the Canada Energy Regulator has projected that if Canada strengthens its climate policies to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, neither the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion nor the new Keystone XL pipeline will be necessary. That is interesting.

Why does the government stubbornly support projects that are harmful to the environment? These projects are not even embraced by the new U.S. administration. These projects are not sustainable in the long term, as current events constantly remind us.

A group of over 100 economists and natural resources experts from all across Canada recently urged the government to abandon Trans Mountain before sinking any more of taxpayers' money into it. As I was saying earlier, this money should instead be used to accelerate the transition to a greener economy, particularly in Alberta, Canada's leading oil producer. We need to be far more aggressive in immediately transitioning away from oil and gas.

The International Energy Agency recently calculated that the demand for oil should drop by 30% over the next two decades if the countries that signed the Paris Agreement on climate change respect their commitments. The oil-based economy is no longer viable in the long term, and experts are doing all they can to remind us of that.

On Monday, the World Meteorological Organization published a report showing that, despite the brief decline in greenhouse gas emissions because of the COVID-19 crisis, concentrations of these same gases have reached record highs. Once again, these data show that urgent action must be taken because, as greenhouse gases continue to rise, the social and economic costs of inaction rise with them.

This could not be any clearer. We have to rework Bill C-12 to give it more teeth because the way this bill is currently worded, it does not measure up. The government has to work with the opposition to improve its bill by adding a target for 2025, a more ambitious goal for 2030, and a requirement to meet the targets instead of simply preparing to present reports that will outline yet another failure.

Again, the mandatory target for 2030, in other words Canada's commitment under the Paris Agreement, should be enshrined in law, and unfortunately, that is not currently the case.

I will come back to the particularly important words that the bill puts forward: “transparency”, “accountability”. The one that seems to be missing is responsibility. Instead of making the government responsible to Parliament, this bill wants to make the Minister of Environment and Climate Change the one who sets the interim targets. Clause 11 even gives him the right to amend the targets and emissions reduction plan.

If the minister and the government think that they will not be able to meet their greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, all they have to do is amend the targets and once again become fake climate champions. The government could change its targets to suit lobby and industry groups. That is not a serious approach.

The only limits that Bill C-12 imposes on the government, if it decides to amend the established targets somewhere along the way, is that it must consult its own federal ministers and provide an opportunity for comment to the public, the provinces and territories, indigenous groups, and advisory bodies created by the government itself.

Consulting an advisory body is good, but it is not the same thing as evaluating the measures and the progress towards the goal. Can these really be called limits? No. In addition, the minister reserves the right to choose which comments to share with civil society. The advisory bodies are window dressing, just like the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development in the bill. The bill does not even have the commissioner assess the minister's action plan based on progress towards the Paris targets. Once again, with no independent authority to assess the targets, tools and progress, this is not a serious approach.

We need a climate bill in which achievement of targets no longer depends solely on the will of the government of the day. The government must be accountable for its climate action. It must answer to the thousands of people who are counting on it simply to ensure healthy living conditions on Earth in a future that is nearer than we think.

I will give another example of the government's lack of seriousness when it comes to accountability. According to clause 16, the minister himself will state, in his own report, the reasons for failing to meet the target and the actions taken to address the failure. That means that the minister will be assessing his own performance. Self-assessment: is that what the Liberals' commitment to transparency comes to?

According to Bill C-12, the reports on the targets, whether or not they are achieved, must be submitted to Parliament and made public. That is fine. However, once again, there is a big loophole, because nothing in this bill requires that the content of the reports be assessed by an independent authority.

We have a lot of work to do, and I sincerely hope that every party in the House will collaborate to improve this bill and make it a truly binding text that will make all of our constituents proud. I am thinking of the mothers who are fighting on the front lines for their children's future, and the young people who are taking to the streets and to our courtrooms to demand that we fulfill our commitments. They are the people to whom the government should be accountable.

That is why I introduced my bill, Bill C-215. We need a transparent, accountable government. We need to measure progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions based on targets. Let's talk about my bill, because I hope that the government and the other parties will be inspired to set stronger limits on the governments that take office between now and 2050, no matter their political stripe. I believe that is the approach we must take. Once and for all, we must pass climate legislation that does not change with the political party in power. The climate emergency demands it.

With Bill C-215, we are proposing to require that the government announce the suite of measures that it plans to take to reach its targets. The government would thus be accountable as soon as the bill is passed, and it would have to respond publicly if it failed.

With Bill C-215, we would entrench in Canadian law our international commitments under the Paris Agreement and make them mandatory in Canada. It is essential that we do so. Bill C-215 also requires the government to establish additional measures to ensure that its action plan meets the requirements of this act. If not, the government must inform and explain to the House why it failed to do so.

Under Bill C-215, the minister's action plan must include interim targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to be achieved by 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040, measures to be taken to achieve these targets, the method for calculating Canadian greenhouse gas emissions, tools or instruments for measuring the progress made and tools for assessing the impact of emission reductions. Those are what I call real constraints.

Of course my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I support climate legislation, but we think it must have truly binding measures so that future governments have the legislative tools they need to stay on course for a healthy and hopefully carbon-neutral future, a future in which, most importantly, greenhouse gas emissions will be significantly lower, not just compensated for by bogus measures.

Regardless of whether we are in government or in opposition, as parliamentarians, we must do better. As I said, the climate crisis must not be a partisan issue. That said, I am very much looking forward to studying this bill in committee. I do have reservations, but climate legislation is crucial. I am impressed with the minister's involvement on this file. I know he wants to ensure a healthy future for the next generation.

The legislative process presents a perfect opportunity to establish the robust accountability framework we need to ensure that Canada meets its international commitments and to support the aggressive action needed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Let's work together towards that goal.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I really did enjoy the member's remarks. I think there are lots of suggestions coming from them.

This bill is quite different in my experience. I really do think that this bill opens up a lot of opportunity for the committee to do a lot of work and bring forward its suggestions, rather than the minister having an absolute fixed position. I really hope that is the way it goes because the bill basically sets out the targets. I will agree with the member that there do have to be ways of ensuring that targets are met. We have heard some suggestions at the finance committee quite often: home renovation; solar; small modular reactors, and so on.

All I am saying is that I enjoyed the member's remarks. I do hope that the committee gets seized with the issues and provides strong suggestions, rather than the government coming in with a fixed position, and that the government does listen to the suggestions that come from the committee.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks, which I will now address.

I did hear a particularly interesting comment on Bill C-12. I was told that after a rather, well, careful reading, it was found to be empty. The good news is, a bill that is empty can be infinitely and generously improved. The minister is a good listener, which will be helpful. The Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc will all be able to amend this bill and make it more binding. The most common criticism is that it is not sufficiently binding. Canada has made international commitments. Some people do not realize the importance of integrating these commitments into Canadian law, meeting the targets and taking responsibility if our efforts fail.

I look forward to the opportunity to propose a number of improvements at committee.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech. She is a very active participant in the debates in the House.

She talked about the oil sector. With regard to the environment, people in my province were surprised to learn of cases in Montreal when raw sewage was dumped into the St. Lawrence Seaway. We all have to work harder to do more for the environment.

Does my colleague agree with the efforts to prevent the disposal of sewage in this way?

Does she think the provinces should be allowed to set their own carbon tax policy?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for making an effort to speak French; it is appreciated.

He asked some very interesting questions that I will certainly discuss with him, but this debate is about Bill C-12.

Unlike the previous government, this government is committed to addressing climate change and achieving net-zero emissions. That is important to note. Our commitments must be substantial. We must take concrete action and have a plan to vote on, not a promise of a future plan. We are being asked to wait another 10 years before we have a real plan and targets. What we want is to have one now.

I would be happy to discuss it with him.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my Bloc colleague for the introduction of her private member's bill, Bill C-215, and her passion and advocacy for climate accountability.

In Bill C-215, there is a much bigger role for the environment commissioner. In the government's bill, the environment commissioner is tasked with only doing one report every five years. My question is not only whether the member thinks that this should be improved upon and that the environment commissioner needs a bigger role, but given that we just found out the environment commissioner does not currently have enough resources and staffing to do current environmental work, does the member agree that we need to make the environment commissioner an independent officer of Parliament, so he or she would have their own budget, staffing and resources?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I know that she or one of her colleagues moved a motion in the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to give more powers to the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. We in the Bloc Québécois are more or less in agreement with that.

As I was saying earlier, in this bill, the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is almost window dressing. The commissioner is not really given much power. Even if the minister is wrong or the targets are not met, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development cannot do much.

A panel of experts is established. Again, it is the government that decides who sits on this panel. Clearly, there is a lot more work to be done in terms of accountability.

I look forward to working with my colleague on this issue in committee.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech.

The Liberals have said that they are open, but unfortunately I have come to the same conclusion as my colleague. This bill contains nothing but rhetoric and would not accomplish much, which is unfortunately not uncommon for the Liberals.

Since they seem to be open, I want to give my colleague an opportunity to speak. In an ideal world, we would like Bill C-215 to be adopted. If we could take provisions from Bill C-215 and put them in Bill C-12, what are my colleague's top two measures to include? Could she describe them to the House?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to speak more to Bill C-215.

It is not complicated. As I was saying, we are being asked to vote on a plan that does not yet exist. Bill C-215 calls on the minister to develop a real plan with concrete measures to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction targets and tools to measure the progress made. I am talking about accountability here as well. The government must be accountable to the public. People want to know where we stand with our reduction targets. They want to know if these targets have been met and what needs to be done.

We still do not know whether the polluting industries will have to respect draconian measures. We do not know whether a transportation electrification plan is in the works. We do not know all of the measures that could be taken to reduce our carbon footprint. They could easily be integrated into Bill C-12.

These are the gems I would take from Bill C-215 and add to Bill C-12.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

I want to confirm that I support this private member's bill, which is clearly more robust than Bill C-12. I agree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. We do not need new Keystone or Trans Mountain pipelines.

I have just one question for my colleague. What are the most important aspects of her bill that she thinks should be included in the amendments to Bill C-12?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her kind words and her support for my bill.

As I was saying, I think it is important for the government to be accountable. The review and accountability processes in this bill need to be improved. Under the bill in its current form, the minister can not only set and change targets, he also gets to evaluate his own performance.

We need to take a step back, consult scientists and experts and make the government accountable for the measures it takes on climate action. All of that needs to be included in Bill C-12.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will address the second question. I think it is very important. It has to do with the issue of jurisdictions, which comes into play in our response to climate change.

Does the hon. member think that the provinces can have the freedom to choose their own policies when it comes to the carbon tax or does she think that the federal government can legitimately impose the process associated with the carbon tax?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

That is a tricky question. A Bloc MP would never say that the federal government should overrule Quebec, for example.

In terms of the environment, I know that my colleague and I have different opinions. The issue may be somewhat more delicate. I invite him to discuss this immediately after the sitting. We could perhaps come to an agreement.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, climate accountability legislation is so important. Why is it important? I had a question asked of me a few times this week by journalists. They asked why people should care about this. When I say we have missed every international climate target we have set, every single one, it does not really get to the heart of what is happening. We are so used to broken promises. We are so used to a government telling us we are on track, that it is taking action and that it understands the urgency, when its actions and urgency in no way match the scale of the crisis we are facing.

Why does this matter? For one thing, it is because we are stealing the future from our children. The young people know it, and they should not have to feel that fear. They should not have to march in the streets because politicians are not protecting their futures.

Before I ran for office, I taught a course at the University of Victoria that covered climate change and social movements. I remember that during one of the breaks, a young woman in my class came up with to me tears in her eyes. She asked me how she should study and work on the things we were talking about when scientists are telling us that we have a decade to turn this around. She said that if we fail, it means the collapse of ecosystems, mass extinctions and millions of people dying, along with our food systems and our future. We talked about how we maintain hope, how we make space to grieve and how to tap into fear and pain while continuing to fight for a livable planet. She went on to help organize climate strikes in Victoria.

Her wisdom and leadership, and the wisdom and leadership of kids across Canada and around the world, often bring me to tears. They motivate me to action.

What this young woman was doing was listening to the science and looking at the challenges we face, straight on. She was seeing and feeling the urgency. When people do that, when they choose not to look away and let themselves feel the real threat of what we are facing, what our children are facing and what it means for their futures, it is devastating, heartbreaking and terrifying. If people are willing to stay with that feeling, then they have no choice but to act and no choice but to act with the urgency that matches the crisis.

When Greta Thunberg said to world leaders, “How dare you...look away”, this is what she was talking about, and given that the government has put forward a bill that puts off climate accountability for the next 10 years, I can only assume that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Environment and every Liberal MP are choosing to look away. Maybe they do so because it is politically inconvenient to feel. Maybe they do so because it is unparliamentary to show emotions while debating legislation. Maybe they do so because it is scary to stand up, speak out, act with courage and face the consequences. However, whatever the reason, I say, “How dare you look away.”

However, it is not too late. We could still turn this small step in the right direction into something meaningful and real, and something that would give those young people some hope that the politicians who have so often betrayed them feel the urgency and are going to do something to turn this around.

We could still amend the bill to put in a milestone target of 2025. We could strengthen the accountability measures in the bill. We could ensure that the targets we set are in line with the best available science, our international obligations and equity principles.

I encourage every member, especially those on the government side of the House, not to look away and to take a moment to feel the scale of the crisis we are facing, the urgency. I hope they will work with us to make the bill something our children can be proud of.

In that spirit, I want to go through the parts of the bill I was really glad to see and then the parts that are missing.

I will mention the top three pieces that I appreciate about the bill. First, putting a commitment to net zero by 2050 into law is essential. The bill would not only ensure that the net-zero target is put into law, but also ensure we legislate our other long-term targets. Second, it was good to see the bill explicitly name the government’s commitment to upholding section 35 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Third, I am glad there would be progress reporting two years before each milestone target, with an opportunity to adjust and take additional actions if we are off track.

When it comes to the things that are missing, of course the most egregious omission is the lack of any real accountability for the next 10 years and the glaring omission of a 2025 milestone target. Scientists have been clear that this decade is the most important. The next 10 years are the ones the IPCC says are crucial if we want to have any hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change.

It is hard to wrap my head around how the government can put forward a climate accountability bill that would put off and avoid accountability for the most important 10 years. It is hard for me to understand how Liberal members of Parliament, especially those with children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews, can stand behind the bill, how they can look young people in the eyes and tell them they have to wait another decade. It is an easy fix: Put in a 2025 milestone target.

The second big gap is in the need for stronger accountability mechanisms, both with the arm’s-length advisory body, which only gives advice right now but does not have a defined role in assessments or reviewing progress, and with the environment commissioner, who, in the bill, would only have to do one report every five years. Neither of these bodies have the capacity or mandate in the bill to properly hold the government to account.

As it stands, the minister is mainly accountable to himself. The government determines what targets should be set, opening up the opportunity to set weak targets, and whether the government is on track to meeting those targets.

To fix these issues we need to strengthen and clearly define the advisory body's role in establishing targets, reviewing climate plans and evaluating progress reports and assessment reports. We also must guarantee that this body is composed of independent experts from all regions of Canada, and that it includes indigenous and worker representatives and does not include fossil fuel executives or industry representatives.

These fixes would strengthen the advisory body, but we also need to ensure the environment commissioner is reporting on whether our targets are in line with the best available science, whether our climate plan will actually get us to our target, whether our progress report and the assessment report are accurate and whether our proposed corrective actions are adequate for addressing the times when we are not on track.

The environment commissioner could play an important role in this legislation, but we learned last week that the environment commissioner currently does not have the resources to do its regular environmental work, and that its staff and environmental experts can be reallocated to other projects by the Auditor General. We need to make the environment commissioner an independent officer of Parliament.

The third gap is the fact the government has given itself up to nine months, after the bill gets royal assent, to set a target for 2030 and therefore create a plan to meet that target.

This means it could be up to a year from now until we see a plan to reach our 2030 target, yet in the Liberal government's most recent throne speech, the Liberals said they would immediately bring forward a plan to exceed Canada's 2030 climate goal. They said “immediately”. I do not know who defines “a year later” as “immediately”. I feel like we need to remind the government, again, that a plan to create a plan is not a plan.

We know that climate accountability means nothing without climate action, so where is the government's climate action plan? When will we see the new target that exceeds our 2030 climate goals, and when will we see the plan to get us there? We need to see investments in green infrastructure, in transportation, in building retrofits and in building green affordable housing. We need a just and sustainable recovery, a green new deal that creates good family-sustaining jobs in the low-carbon economy. We need a just transition for workers, and all of this needs to be outlined in a climate plan that will get us to our targets, ones that are ambitious and that are based on keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5°C.

There are a number of gaps that I will not cover in as much detail, but we should be talking about carbon budgets instead of milestone targets, about Canada's fair-share contribution to 1.5°C, and we should be requiring the minister to meet strong standards when setting targets, as well as strong standards when creating and adjusting plans. Currently, the bill would allow future governments to set weak targets and create plans without much detail. If we fail at strengthening the bill, we have to tell young people and tell Canadians that we were not courageous enough to put the measures in place to avoid catastrophic climate change, that we were not courageous enough to protect their future.

For most of this speech, I have been speaking about the future and the severe consequences of our present action and inaction. That future outlined in the IPCC report is scary, but this is not just about our future. The impacts of the climate crisis are already being felt in Canada. In my riding of Victoria and in B.C., it was not too long ago that we were choking on the smoke from the climate fires south of the border. We know that temperatures in Canada are increasing at twice the global rate. The impacts are felt particularly in the Arctic along the coasts, and are disproportionately felt by indigenous, rural, marginalized and racialized communities. Canadians want real action on the climate crisis, and they want a government that not only promises to fight climate change but will actually deliver on that promise.

When I say, again and again, that our government has missed every single climate target and that the current Liberal government is not even on track to meet Stephen Harper's weak targets, I hope that the members in this chamber feel the seriousness of this failure, that they do not look away and that they feel the urgency. We need climate accountability now, not in 10 years. We need climate action now, not in nine months to a year.

It was back in 2008 that the United Kingdom created its climate accountability framework, the Climate Change Act. This act was the first of its kind in the U.K., and it remains highly regarded and has served as a model for legislation in other jurisdictions, including Sweden, New Zealand, Denmark, France, Germany and Spain. The U.K. has set five-year carbon budgets covering immediately from 2008 onward, and regular reporting to Parliament has enhanced transparency and accountability. The U.K. also has an expert advisory committee, the Committee on Climate Change, that is much stronger than the advisory body proposed by the current government.

Two years before the U.K. implemented this bill, in 2006, Jack Layton, the leader of the NDP at the time, originally introduced the first climate accountability act in Canada. The bill passed at third reading by a vote of 148 to 116. The Harper Conservatives voted against it, but the bill died in the Senate. The NDP has introduced the climate change accountability act as a private member's bill in the 39th, 40th and 41st Parliament, by Jack but also by former MP Megan Leslie.

Imagine where we would be if we had passed strong climate accountability legislation back then. Since implementing climate accountability, the U.K. has successfully reduced its emissions over the past decade, in stark contrast to Canada, whose emissions continue to increase despite the government's empty words and claims to climate leadership.

In this Parliament, my NDP colleagues, the member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Elmwood—Transcona, have both put forward legislation in Parliament that calls for strong climate accountability. I want to thank my Bloc colleague for introducing Bill C-215.

I want to highlight one important piece of the member for Winnipeg Centre's bill, Bill C-232, an act respecting a climate emergency action framework. It provides for the development and implementation of a climate emergency action framework. It explicitly outlines how a climate emergency action framework and climate accountability legislation must be built on a foundation that recognizes the indigenous inherent right to self-government, that upholds the provisions in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and that takes into account scientific knowledge including indigenous science and knowledge as well as the responsibilities toward future generations.

While I was glad to see that the government included a commitment to upholding section 35 in UNDRIP in the preamble of the its bill, so far the Liberals have failed to enshrine UNDRIP into law. When will the government put action behind its words when it comes to reconciliation and put the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into law? We have a lot of work to do and we must come together if we want to do it.

As I wrap up, I want to note again that there can be no climate accountability without climate action. The government has missed every single climate target that it has set. Climate accountability is important, but the Liberals are not only putting it off for 10 years. They are also putting off a new target and a plan. They are putting off a climate action plan for up to another year. Where is the government's climate action plan? Part of that plan has to include an end to all fossil fuel subsidies. Stop giving away billions of dollars to profitable oil and gas companies. Stop throwing good money after bad at the Trans Mountain expansion. Please invest those billions of dollars in creating the good, sustainable jobs that people need right now.

We need investments in green infrastructure, in transportation and in building retrofits. We need a just and sustainable recovery, a green new deal, one that creates good jobs in a low-carbon economy. We need a plan that is based on science and in line with keeping global temperatures below 1.5°C.

We must move forward with climate action and climate accountability legislation immediately. We needed it in 2006 when Jack Layton first put it forward and Jack would not want us to wait another 10 years for climate accountability. We needed it in each iteration of the IPCC report. We needed it when we read about the catastrophic impacts of global warming. We needed it last year when young people were marching in the streets, begging politicians, begging decision-makers to listen to the science, to not look away, and we need it now.

I will be pushing the government to make this bill stronger. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We are running out of time. Young people and Canadians are watching us, and they will not forgive us if we fail them, if we lack the courage do what is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. They are telling us to wake up.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am really shocked by what I thought I heard. I am going to ask the hon. member to clarify what she said.

I heard that if there is to be an advisory committee or an advisory board that we should specifically exclude the oil and gas sector from that. This, to me, is offensive on two levels. First, that sector would probably be the most impacted by any substantive changes to our climate change approach. It would seem that it would simply be unfair to exclude their voice from the consideration of things that should be done. Second, from things that I have read, that sector has in fact outperformed just about any other in Canada when it comes to dealing with climate change.

How can the member justify excluding such an important sector in such an unfair way?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, perhaps the Liberal member did mishear me. I said we need representation from workers and that includes workers in the fossil fuel industry. It includes workers who are impacted.

What I would like to avoid is having industry representatives and fossil fuel executives driving our climate plan. I think Canadians can understand why we no longer want to be listening to the fossil fuel industries and the big oil and gas companies that have been making millions of dollars while also receiving billions of dollars in handouts from the government.

We need to not only take a strong stand to stand up for workers and to create a responsible climate plan, but also to stop handing out billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies to these profitable oil and gas companies.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy the fanciful tales from my colleague, the member for Victoria. It is always an interesting world the New Democrats live in, where somehow they get here to Ottawa magically in an airplane, but they are against the energy sector. It is really interesting.

New Democrats are always saying that $200 billion in subsidies is being given to the oil and gas sector. I would love for her to table that document, where it shows $200 billion in subsidies, and I am assuming she means per year, to the oil and gas sector. Could the member table that?

Also, I would love to know how the member feels about the 900 billion litres of raw sewage her city has dumped into the Pacific Ocean since 2013. Divers in Victoria have said that right off the coast, the ocean floor is littered with garbage, but when they go further out, the ocean becomes more beautiful and more vibrant. As a former city councillor, the member should really work on cleaning up her backyard instead of looking down her nose at the oil and gas sector in western Canada.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I encourage the member across the way to look at the reports that outline the fossil fuel subsidies. I would be happy to email the member a copy of those reports.

It is important to note that the reason we are here, the reason we are at this point where young people are marching in the streets, where Canadians across this country are demanding climate action, is the failure of consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments. We went through the Harper years, the years with no climate action, with no real protection of our oceans and our coastal ecosystems.

The member mentioned divers who are going off the coast of Victoria. We are very concerned about the environment. We are very concerned about climate change. I think that concern is shared by Canadians across the country. It is disappointing that the Conservatives continue to focus on individual actions, rather than acknowledging that this Liberal government—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Victoria for her passionate speech.

I would like to know what she thinks of the fact that the fight against climate change could be the driving force behind the creation of a sustainable and green economy and a fairer and greener post-COVID recovery. According to a 2019 nation-wide study, more women than men have decided to take action on climate change. Groups such as Femmessor and Mothers Step In are demonstrating the growing interconnectedness of the feminist and the environmental movements advocating for the future of our children.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will answer the question around the opportunity for good green jobs in the low-carbon economy first. We know if we were to invest the billions that are being spent on the fossil fuel industry, the $12 billion that is proposed for the Trans Mountain expansion project, into green infrastructure, clean energy and building retrofits, it would create hundreds of thousands of good jobs across the country in local communities.

I also want to touch on the other part of the question, which is about the connection between the women's movement and the environmental movement. We know women are disproportionally impacted by the climate crisis, both here in Canada and around the world. We also know that women have been leaders in a lot of these climate movements. I want to thank the member for bringing up that point.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Victoria for an incredible speech. She did her constituents proud with her interventions on Bill C-12.

The previous intervention from my Conservative colleague illustrates the complete disconnect that exists there with the impending challenge that is before us with respect to climate change. In order to make people like that understand the gravity of the situation, perhaps it would be informative to the House for the member for Victoria to put the costs in economic terms. In other words, what are the costs going to be to our economy? Never mind the ecological devastation; what will the economic costs be to Canada with respect to upgrading our infrastructure and adapting to a new climate if we do nothing? Perhaps that will make my Conservative colleagues finally understand the gravity of the situation before us.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his insight.

It is the acknowledgement that the costs of inaction greatly outweigh the costs of investing in the kinds of good sustainable jobs we know Canadians need and are needed to meet our climate targets. There has been a lot of research, both globally and some here in Canada. One of the amendments I would like to see for this bill is for the advisory body to have a role in outlining those costs so we get updated annual reports on not only the costs of catastrophic climate change, both present and future, but also how we adapt our planning to adjust to some of these horrific things, like forest fires, flooding and increased severe weather events.

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

Madam Speaker, I also want to commend my hon. friend from Victoria for an excellent speech.

To my eternal horror, I have literally been working on this issue since 1986. I have seen the targets put in place and each time I can recite, chapter and verse, what particular event knocked us off course.

When we look at other countries, as the hon. member did, I want to draw attention to New Zealand's climate accountability act and the U.K. act. The U.K. act has bracketed carbon budgets, which this bill lacks, that are currently in the 2018 to 2022 carbon budget. The New Zealand act is newer, but it has put in place 2025 goals and carbon budgets.

I think it is terribly important that the government listen to the IPCC's 1.5° C special report of October 2018. I will ask my hon. friend, who is clearly familiar with it, to set out what we need to do before 2030 to avoid going above 1.5° C.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her ongoing advocacy with respect to the environment and addressing the climate crisis. This question is so important. Not only are we presenting the fact that the biggest gap in this bill is the missing 2025 milestone target, the missing progress report that would come before that and the missing accountability for the most important 10 years, but also what actions we need to take between now and 2030 if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. Some of those things include investments in clean energy, retrofits and green infrastructure.

We also know we need to stop doing some things, such as pouring money into fossil fuel subsidies. We need to stop the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. We need to put that money into solutions that will get us to our climate target and protect our future, and the future of our children and their children.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, just for clarification, the member did imply that, when we talk about the net-zero advisory committee, the NDP would not want to have industry reps; and we are not talking about workers, we are talking about representatives of the industry. Is that the official position of the NDP?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am curious if the member across the way does not consider that workers who are in the fossil fuel industry can represent that industry. Is he saying that only executives or officials from the company themselves can—

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

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 25 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.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak in support of Bill C-12, which was presented in the House yesterday. I am very much in support of our government's commitment to making Canada a net-zero nation by 2050, because the urgency to act on the global climate crisis is real and the challenge of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions is also an opportunity to build back our economy more competitively, more sustainably and more inclusively. Attracting investments and creating jobs will benefit all Canadians.

While the global pandemic has turned much of our world upside down, it has not changed our resolve to build a clean energy future and to make sure we are putting people at the heart of this transition. This is what I would like to focus on with my time today. Before I do that, I also want to say I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherbrooke. I look forward to hearing her comments.

Climate change may be measured in tonnes of greenhouse gases emitted or saved, but it is lived by families and communities. A just transition is where the importance of climate change and government policy positively intersects with the lives and livelihoods of all Canadians.

That is particularly true for those who have been especially hard hit by COVID-19 and the recession: women, youth, indigenous communities, immigrants, racialized people, people with disabilities, rural communities and northern communities, where I live. It is also true for so many workers and communities that are directly affected by the rapid transformation of the global energy sector, which is why creating good, well-paying jobs in the low-carbon economy is essential.

It is essential that we build a sustainable and prosperous future for Canada and all Canadians. How do we that? This is the question that lingers in the minds of many who support the initiatives we have introduced around climate change. How can we do more? How do we play a larger role?

A key starting place is to ensure workers have the right skills to succeed in the clean growth economy. As most know, I am a huge supporter of alternate energy development, but I am also a big supporter of the resource development sector in Canada, especially the mining industry. I know many of these companies are working hard to invest properly to ensure they have a clean growth economy. They are looking at alternatives for fuelling and powering their operations and reducing their carbon footprints.

For example, we are working with communities and workers who have been affected by the phasing out of coal-fired electricity, with meaningful action to diversify their economies and create new jobs. One way we are doing this is with $185 million in new federal funding to support coal-dependent communities, including $35 million for skills development and economic diversification.

Our government not only set targets and adapted a vigorous agenda around clean energy and climate change, but it is making the investments available so people, communities and companies can move forward in Canada to ensure that these happen.

The remainder of some $150 million within the Government of Canada is now earmarked for new infrastructure projects, and so far this year we have invested more than $22 million in 36 projects across Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. This funding has supported economic diversification initiatives in Leduc and Hanna, Alberta; a solar installation training program at Southeast College in Estevan, Saskatchewan; and similar projects in Atlantic Canada.

Right here in my hometown of Mary's Harbour, we are developing alternate energy to support and reduce the use of diesel generation in rural communities like the one I live in. This year, with a partnership from the federal government, we are the first remote community in Labrador to be able to combine hydro power and solar power to supplement, and reduce our dependency on, diesel and reduce our carbon footprint.

We are looking forward to doing projects like this in all communities that have become entirely dependent on diesel and move them off diesel dependency. This would include projects like the Glencore smelter and the Trevali closure diversification initiative in northern New Brunswick. We helped Ignite Labs in Nova Scotia, and we also announced that we were moving forward with the Atlantic loop. The Atlantic loop will connect surplus clean power to regions that are moving away from coal. It is a classic win-win that makes electricity more affordable as we create new jobs for workers and their communities.

I live in a region in Labrador that is one of the largest generators of hydro power. The Atlantic loop provides an opportunity for us to continue to fuel the economy with clean energy through massive development projects, such as those at Gull Island.

We are looking forward to the opportunities this provides, not just for Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada, but for all Canadians. We see it as a real win-win situation and are happy that the Government of Canada, our government, is moving forward with the Atlantic loop.

That is just one example of how we are putting people at the heart of this energy transition. [Technical difficulty—Editor]

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up. I know there have been some technical issues, but there is time for questions and comments and I am sure she will be able to add anything during that time.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitated to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but I think her speech demonstrated the lack of good Internet in her community. There were many gaps. I would ask if the clerks at the table would consider allowing her to provide her full remarks so the gaps could be replaced in the Hansard, because we missed quite a lot of what she had to say.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I thank the hon. member. I do not think there would be any opposition to the parliamentary secretary tabling her speech so it can be included in the Hansard.

Is it agreed the hon. member can table her speech so it can be properly reflected in the Hansard?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[Accordingly, the balance of the speech as tabled is as follows]

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Energy efficiency is another example. By working with Canadians to retrofit their homes with better windows, appliances and insulation, and with smarter grids and building codes, they are seeing the benefits of the energy transition in their own homes. The benefits include lower monthly utility bills and more comfortable homes, all while creating thousands of good jobs and dramatically reducing our emissions.

Here is a theme I keep coming back to: creating good, green jobs as we drive environmental performance. That has been central to our government’s economic response to COVID-19, including more than $1.7 billion to help clean up orphan and inactive oil and gas wells in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. This investment is helping as many as 10,000 hard-working Canadians to find ways to put their skills to use, while demonstrating Canadian leadership on climate change and environmental stewardship.

For the same reason, we have announced a new $750-million emissions reduction fund, $320 million to assist the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore industry and $100 million for the Clean Resource Innovation Network. This funding will help make Canada’s oil and gas sector the cleanest in the world, so that good energy jobs are also green energy jobs and so that our move toward a net-zero economy leaves no one behind.

We recognize the vital role that Canada’s petroleum sector plays here at home and around the world. We are investing in these communities to help them achieve their net-zero targets while ensuring their long-term success. We also recognize the need to nurture talent in the oil and gas sector. We are working with industry, provinces and territories to transform this key pillar of Canada’s economy. Further, we are making other generational investments to bring together economic growth and environmental protection. This includes new funding for smart grids, carbon capture and storage, and the next wave of batteries, made right here in Canada.

We are creating good jobs in wind and solar energy, and emerging sources of clean energy such as tidal and geothermal. We have put together a made-in-Canada action plan for small modular reactors and a strategy for Canada to become a global leader in the clean production of hydrogen. We will drive the clean growth economy by making zero-emissions vehicles more affordable and investing in more charging stations across the country.

We are setting a clear course for our net-zero future that enlists all Canadians. We have been incorporating indigenous knowledge and engaging meaningfully on how we review major energy projects, as well as supporting indigenous participation in and ownership of these projects. This fair and just transition will be smart and inclusive.

Our recent Speech from the Throne doubled down on our promise to exceed our Paris commitments by the end of this decade and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. It also launched our campaign to create over one million jobs, restoring employment to pre-pandemic levels and higher. We are ensuring Canadians have good jobs they can rely on, particularly those hit hardest by the global pandemic. We are making direct investments in the social sector and infrastructure, providing immediate training to quickly skill up workers and offering incentives for employers to hire and retain workers.

We are aware that to be successful, our climate plan must put all Canadians, and all communities, at the heart of our efforts. Indeed the Throne Speech was clear on this. It stated:

Canada cannot reach net zero without the know-how of the energy sector, and the innovative ideas of all Canadians, including people in places like British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

This pledge to empower all Canadians includes getting more women working as employees and executives in the energy sector. We simply cannot afford to leave half of our workforce on the sidelines as we embrace a future built on innovation, ingenuity and imagination. Studies show that energy companies that have diverse leadership are more innovative and profitable. We can and should do better. We are taking action to advance gender equality through the Equal by 30 campaign. We are promoting women in the energy sector at various international bodies such as the G7, the Clean Energy Ministerial and elsewhere, not just because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is the smart thing to do. It is just good business. To date, more than 150 companies, governments and organizations have signed on to the Equal by 30 campaign. They are making important commitments towards equal pay, equal opportunities and equal leadership for women.

While we are proud of our record of engaging and including Canadians in this fundamental transformation of our energy systems, we know that there is still more to do. We are prepared to do the heavy lifting to achieve net-zero emissions, grow our national economy and realize a clean energy future that leaves no one behind. Canadians ask no more and they deserve no less.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to get a few comments from the parliamentary secretary on pricing. This government appears to be making affordable energy seem costly, and thereby give the illusion that its policy is somehow affordable.

Let us talk about the Atlantic loop. We all know the hydro coming online in Labrador is going to be very expensive compared with the alternatives. The government has proposed sharing that very expensive power with the rest of Atlantic Canada.

Could the member talk about her government's plan to ensure ratepayers throughout Atlantic Canada, and in my home province of New Brunswick in particular, do not get socked with high prices because of the government's policy and being forced to buy power through the Atlantic loop?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, substituting power under the Atlantic loop does not necessarily mean using power that is already available through Muskrat Falls, which he quotes as higher-priced power. It includes the opportunity to develop additional power sources, whether in Labrador, other parts of Atlantic Canada or central Canada. Those are the things that will be considered. The Atlantic loop is about replacing [Technical difficulty—Editor] affordability of that power to citizens.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the government representative a question about the targets, which are not included in Bill C-12.

Immediately following the Paris Agreement in 2016, the first ministers met and issued what is known as the Vancouver declaration on clean growth and climate change, which states, and I quote:

First Ministers commit to:

Implement GHG mitigation policies in support of meeting or exceeding Canada's 2030 target of a 30% reduction below 2005 levels of emissions, including specific provincial and territorial targets and objectives;

Why is there nothing in the bill about specific targets and objectives?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I got most of my colleague's question. I apologize if I miss the mark here, because it did cut in and out.

I think as a government we have demonstrated we are prepared to do the heavy lifting to achieve net-zero emissions by 2030. We have launched a campaign to do so. To date, we have already had more than 150 companies [Technical difficulty—Editor]. We will continue to improve on those as we go.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will go to the next question and comment, and then I will make statement. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that we are discussing moving towards a massive reduction of carbon emissions. It is necessary.

My concern is that I have been in the House since the days when Stéphane Dion was telling us about the great plan for Kyoto. Year in and year out, emissions rose under Stephen Harper and under the Liberal government.

When I see the Prime Minister reach out to Joe Biden and say that he is promoting Keystone XL, I ask myself how serious the government is if it is promoting a dead-dog project like Keystone XL that is going to massively increase our greenhouse gas emissions and sending the message to the Americans that we are not serious.

When is the government going to get serious on moving off the oil sands and moving to a clear, credible transition?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I must apologize. I actually actually lost the whole system during the middle of the member's question. I sincerely apologize.

I would say to him that I know this is an issue that he is very concerned about, around climate change. We would certainly expect the member's support on this bill, as he has championed many of the things included in this bill in the past.

Again, I apologize, and I appreciate the intervention by the Leader of the Green Party, in supporting me in improving my Internet access here in Labrador. We are well on the road to trying to do that, but as members know, it is a long—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the member did not hear my question, I think it would only be fair that I get a chance to repeat the question. That way, we would get it very clearly on the record, the lack of action from the Liberal government on Keystone XL.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is not a point of order. It is actually a point of debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Labrador for his speech.

With the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, the government is introducing a bill that will help fight the extreme risks associated with climate change.

The science is clear. Human activity is causing unprecedented changes in the Earth's climate. Climate change poses serious threats to the health and safety of humans, to the environment, including biodiversity, and to economic growth.

Canada's climate is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet's. In our northern regions, it is warming three times faster. We can see the effects of that warming in many parts of Canada, and they will only intensify over time.

These changes have many consequences. For example, scientists expect higher average precipitation in most of Canada. The availability of fresh water is changing, and the likelihood of water shortages in the summer is growing. A warmer climate will intensify some extreme weather conditions, such as heat waves and floods.

Canadians are already feeling the effects of climate change and extreme weather events, including the increasing intensity and frequency of flooding, storms, fires, coastal erosion, extreme heat events, melting permafrost and rising sea levels.

These effects pose a significant risk to the safety, health and well-being of all Canadians, our communities, our economy and our natural environment. It is important to ensure that Canadians are protected against the risks associated with climate change.

Reaching net zero by 2050 is vitally important to mitigating the risks of climate change, not only for Canada but on a global scale. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that meeting that target is essential if we want to limit global temperature increases to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and reduce the risks associated with climate change.

Limiting the temperature increase to 1.5°C is especially important because it will have a considerable impact on the effects of climate change on all fronts, compared to a potential global temperature increase of 2°C.

Limiting warming to 1.5°C would give us additional options to adapt to the effects of climate change. When Canada ratified the Paris Agreement, it committed to setting and communicating its ambitious national objectives and undertaking ambitious national measures to mitigate climate change in order to meet them.

I would like to remind members that the Paris Agreement seeks to strengthen efforts to hold the increase in the average global temperature to well below 2°C and, if possible, to limit it to 1.5°C. Currently, Canada's nationally determined contribution, communicated in accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is its target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The government is determined to meet this target, and even exceed it.

The government has also committed to developing a plan to set Canada on a path to achieve a prosperous net-zero-emissions future by 2050, supported by public participation, including provincial and territorial governments as well as expert advice. Canadians know full well that climate change threatens their health, their way of life and the planet. They want climate action now, and that is what the government will continue to do by immediately introducing a plan that will enable Canada to exceed its 2030 climate targets and legislation that will aim for net-zero emissions by 2050.

Before the government can reach its net-zero targets, it must first engage in a process that takes into account the considerations of the populations most affected by climate change. Although Canada's indigenous peoples and northern communities are exceptionally resilient, they are also particularly vulnerable because of such factors as their remoteness and inaccessibility, the cold climate, aging and ineffective infrastructure, and reliance on diesel-based systems to generate electricity and heat homes.

That is why the government is determined to move forward with the approach based on the recognition of rights reflected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In fact, the government will introduce a bill to implement the declaration by the end of the year.

The government is also commited to strengthening its collaboration with Canada's indigenous peoples when it comes to climate mitigation measures. This commitment builds on existing initiatives. The government is contributing financially and collaborating on first nations, Métis and Inuit projects to monitor climate change in indigenous communities, build resilient infrastructure, prepare and implement climate change adaptation strategic plans or even develop green energy options that will help reduce dependence on diesel.

The plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 would also contribute to making the Canadian economy more resilient, more inclusive and more competitive. With a view to creating a stronger and resilient Canada in the wake of this pandemic, climate action will be the cornerstone of our plan to support and create one million jobs across the country.

Regardless of the global challenges associated with the current pandemic, climate change continues to worsen, and there is little doubt that 2020 will be one of the warmest years on record.

It is important to recognize that climate change is a global problem that requires an immediate response from all governments in Canada, as well as from industry, non-governmental organizations and Canadians.

However, the government recognizes the important collective and individual efforts that have already been made and wants to support this momentum to mitigate climate change. For example, as of 2024, the Société de transport de Sherbrooke will be using new electric buses with a view to completely replacing its bus fleet to make it green. I congratulate the municipal council and Marc Denault, chair of the STS board of directors, for this initiative.

I also want to mention the important work of the Conseil régional de l'environnement de l'Estrie and of Jacinthe Caron, whom I have met several times. They are behind several green projects including the Embarque Estrie platform, which identifies public and active transportation options in the region on a web map. This type of initiative shows that it is possible to make a collective contribution to climate change mitigation and to work together.

Furthermore, not too long ago, 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 the clean resource innovation network to support research and development projects that advance the environmental and economic performance of the oil and gas sector.

Working across government will be an important part of our efforts to mitigate climate change. That is why the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act provides for consultations with federal ministers having duties and functions relating to the measures that may be taken to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act will further our efforts to mitigate climate change by setting national climate change mitigation targets based on the best available science and by promoting transparency and accountability in relation to achieving those targets. Concretely, this bill will create a legally binding process to set and achieve climate targets, and require assessment reports, climate plans and examinations by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.

This bill will help Canada achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and meet our international climate change mitigation commitments.

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

Madam Speaker, listening to both the hon. member's speech and the speeches of some of her colleagues, the way they talk about our energy industry is troubling. I am proud to represent a region of this country that has world-class energy producers. Those hard-working women and men have contributed greatly to Canada's economy. They have world-class environmental protections and the most ethically produced energy in the world, so I take issue with the fact that the government continues to attack Canadian energy, oil and gas.

My question is simple. Does the member acknowledge that Canada already has the most ethically and environmentally produced energy in the world?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I respect my colleague's concern.

As we have said from the beginning, we cannot achieve net-zero emissions without the energy sector's ingenuity and know-how. A number of Canadian oil and gas companies have already committed to net-zero emissions, and they are innovating to meet that challenge.

Canadians, industry, international markets and oil and gas companies know that achieving net-zero emissions is good for our economy and our environment, and we are taking action to get there.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I am sure she is committed to fighting climate change, but I have my doubts about her government, just as I did during last night's emergency debate on the French language, which I watched. There were a lot of good intentions and fine words. The government says that it is going to take action and that it is going to do this or that, but nothing much actually gets done.

One of the key promises the Liberal government made a year ago was to plant two billion trees. We saw the Prime Minister taking selfies with Greta Thunberg and that sort of thing. Things were really going to get moving. Two billion trees is a lot, but I would imagine that a lot of trees can be planted in a year.

My question is simple. Since the Liberal Party was elected, how many trees have been planted in Canada, and how many of those were planted in Quebec?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

For years now, ever since 2015, our government has been taking concrete action to protect the environment. Some of those measures include eliminating single-use plastics, buying hybrid buses, which I talked about in my speech, installing more charging stations, increasing protected areas from 13% to 25%, making significant investments in green infrastructure and introducing measures to encourage businesses to invest in clean energy.

Those are all concrete actions our government has taken over the past few years, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, climate change is the number one issue for people across this planet. The people of my riding, especially indigenous and young people, were expecting the government to take real action in this bill. The government does not even have a milestone target for 2025. They have nothing, so there will be no accountability, or even a progress report, until 2028. The environmental commissioner currently does not have enough resources to do the regular work and is not truly independent.

Does the member agree that the environmental commissioner should be an independent officer, like the official languages commissioner?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is true that there is no 2025 target, but the Paris Agreement is structured around 2030, as are provincial plans, including British Columbia's and Quebec's, and the whole world's plans.

Bill C-12 provides for greater accountability and transparency by introducing an obligation to set a target and develop an emissions reduction plan, both of which must be tabled in Parliament within six months of the act coming into force. There are also legally binding procedures that require the current government and future governments to set national climate targets.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate on Bill C-12, a bill that does absolutely nothing for the environment. By way of analogy, I want to explain a little about what the bill actually does and what it does not do.

In 2015, Stephen Harper passed balanced budget legislation as part of the budget. The idea was that he would put in place a law that would require the government to, in most situations, run a balanced budget. That was a good idea and one that was advanced by many fiscal Conservatives who believed on principle that if there were a law in place requiring governments to run balanced budgets, they would be much more likely to balance budgets going forward.

The problem was that in 2016 the Liberals came in. Every time a budget is passed, a new law is also passed. Therefore, what did they do? They repealed the balanced budget law.

In my province of Alberta we had a balanced budget law in place that was actually repealed by another premier of that same political stripe. The idea is certainly desirable, that we might have legislation in place that would bind the actions of future governments. It might have some rhetorical impact, but it only goes so far, insofar as a subsequent government, or maybe even a subsequent group of people from the same party, could repeal or slightly amend the legislation in order to allow them to continue on the course they are on.

The parliamentary secretary is reminding me that I am splitting my time with member for Edmonton Riverbend. I want to thank the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for being so helpful all the time. I look forward to further feedback from him as we go.

It was at least credible as an exercise for a government that was already running a balanced budget to put in place balanced budget legislation. Imagine how absurd it would be if today we had a government that was not running a balanced budget and had no intention of running a balanced budget, putting in place legislation to require a government in 2040 to run a balanced budget.

That would be a little silly. It would demonstrably be an excuse for not having a plan. It would putting in place legislation to bind a future government to have a plan that it does not currently have, recognizing full well that the future government could repeal the law that required it to have a plan, or at least extend it.

This brings me then to Bill C-12, a bill that does not present a plan for action for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is simply a framework by which the government would put in place a plan that it would be expected to follow by achieving certain targets at certain distant points in the future.

I have no problem supporting a bill that calls on government to act, to put in place targets and act on those targets in response to future events as we move forward. However, it should not escape members of the House that we have yet another case in another important policy area where, instead of putting forward an action plan, the government is choosing symbolism. It is choosing statement over substance.

The Liberal government has been in place for five years and we still do not have anything like a serious environmental plan. Instead, what we see from the government are warm words, attempts to demonstrate its feeling and solidarity and aspirations for distant dates. What frustrates me about the issue of the environment is that we have serious challenges in terms of our environment. They require a serious response, a response that understands the opportunities and the trade-offs, and that makes choices today about how we move forward toward the realization of targets that have been put in place.

Imposing new taxes is not going to cut it. That is the Liberals' approach. When they are talking about action, they are talking about putting in place new taxes. The new taxes on Canadian industry and Canadian activity only is simply going to chase jobs and opportunity beyond our borders. If the Liberals succeed, as it seems they are intent on doing, in shutting down our energy sector, those investments will still happen. Global demand for energy is going up. People need energy.

The question is not if can we shut off our use of energy. The question is if we can find ways of producing energy and delivering energy that are more efficient and more effective. Can we provide that quality of life to people around the world who require an increase in the use of energy, but do it in a way that reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

If we recognize that the problem is not going to be solved by reducing the use of energy, and that it is only going to be solved, generally speaking, by increasing the efficiency of energy production, that should push us not only to lead in the production of energy that is clean, efficient and effective, but also to lead in a way that recognizes the existing technology.

It is great to talk about wind, solar and other alternative sources of energy, but we have to recognize as well where the existing technology is today and how we can make concrete, meaningful improvements to the use of existing technology that providing energy to people right now to meet their energy needs.

That is why I believe that a real environmental plan should be pro-Canadian and pro-Canadian energy. We should encourage the development of Canadian energy, and we should also encourage our energy sector to continue on the road they are on, in terms of improving efficiency, improving effectiveness and delivering more energy to more people in an efficient way.

We have colleagues in this House from all other parties who, frankly, attack the development of pipelines, who attack efforts to find new markets for Canadian energy. We know, by and large, that the issue for them is not really about the transportation. It is generally about wanting to shut down the production of that energy, but they do not think about what will replace Canadian energy if we shut it down. It is going to be energy from other countries.

A member from the NDP was just attacking the Keystone XL project. We have had other members attack other projects in this place. It was the Liberal government that imposed arbitrary regulations, which killed the Energy East pipeline project. We have politicians from all parties, aside from the Conservatives, who are attacking energy projects, but they do not think about what the alternative would be. Should the United States be importing more energy resources from Venezuela, which has lower environmental standards and lower labour standards?

Should Quebec be importing more oil from Saudi Arabia?

Should we be taking more energy resources from outside of Canada? I would like Alberta to be able to supply Quebec with more of its energy. Of course, the Bloc is not going to like that, because it would be great for national unity if Alberta energy were fuelling Quebec's energy needs.

The fact is, though, that more Canadian energy, cleaner Canadian energy with continually improving innovation and standards, would be good for the environment, not bad for the environment. It would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

We can do even better than that. We can make Canada a super power in terms of the development of clean energy technology. We can incentivize the development of new technology and then export that technology around the world. We can meet our environmental obligations by helping developing countries access the technology that we have here, helping them access it to address environmental challenges that are both local to those places, but also global.

This is our contribution. This would be a great vision for environmental improvement and economic development, not to shut down our energy sector, but to mobilize and unleash our energy sector as an engine for technological development that can actually respond to the challenges of climate change and other environmental challenges that we see around the world. That is the real vision for the environment and the economy that has been lacking from this government. It would prefer to send signals and demonstrate its interest, without actually taking action.

Can we achieve the targets in Bill C-12? Can we get to net zero by 2050? I believe we can, but we will only get there, not by putting in place legislation that merely sets out targets, but by supporting and unleashing the development of our energy sector as a clean energy hub for the world. That is what we need from the government.

We need a government that truly understands the importance of addressing our environmental challenges and supporting our workers through pro-Canadian energy approach. That is not what we have from the government. That is what we need going forward.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, the member said we have no plan. I would like to ask the member this. If he and his party are going to try to make the case during this debate that we have no plan, why have they spent so much energy, effort and passion contradicting, voting against and denying the many items in our plan that are now reducing greenhouse gases?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is no plan. All the government talks about is using the environmental challenges we face as an excuse to raise taxes and shut down Canadian energy. Of course, Conservatives are opposed to those things, not only because they are bad for our economy but because they do not help us achieve our environmental objectives.

I will remind the member that Stephen Harper was the first and I believe the only prime minister in history to put in place a plan that reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Some members would like us to have done more and to do more going forward, but I will take that record against Liberal increases in greenhouse gas emissions any day of the week.

Liberals do not understand that the solution is not shutting down Canadian energy and higher taxes. It is, rather, unleashing our economy to pursue that potential that is going to allow us, together, to respond to these environmental challenges.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Since he loves talking about Alberta and the oil industry so much, I have a question for him about that. CBC reported recently that thousands of jobs were lost in Alberta because oil prices fell by about 30% in March. With that in mind, I would like to know whether he still thinks it is a promising industry that will help us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and achieve net zero one day.

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask him why he and his party refuse to support energy transition measures by investing in green technologies that could help create green jobs in his province and for his constituents. When I say “green technologies”, I am not talking about oil. In fact, if I may comment briefly on the Keystone XL pipeline, I would remind him that even the Americans do not want it. President-elect Joe Biden has been quite clear on that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an important question to respond to: What is the future potential of the energy sector in Canada? It is important for the member to know that while there is an economic impact, no doubt, of fluctuations in the oil price, investors understand that oil prices go up and oil prices go down and investments are significantly informed by an assessment of the long-term confidence they can have in that market. That is why, even when oil prices have been low, we have seen significant investments made in the energy sector in other jurisdictions.

We have a particular challenge here in Canada and that has to do with market access. It has to do with the fact that there are great energy projects that make it most of the way through the process, but then Liberal MPs publicly lobby cabinet to kill those projects and they are not able to proceed.

We have a challenge in Canada facing the energy sector, but it is not a problem of price because the price is always fluctuating and decisions are made on long-term horizons. The problem we have is politics. I have been told by ambassadors that Canada is seen as a country with political risk when it comes to investment in the sector. It is not a technical problem. It is a political problem.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member and his Conservative colleagues have said they are worried about how much getting to net zero will cost, but the costs of meeting our targets and stopping dangerous climate change are so much lower than the costs of missing these targets. In fact, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has projected that by 2050 and in the years leading up to 2050, it will cost between $21 billion and $43 billion a year. Wildfires, flooding and extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and intensity, and people are worried about their kids and their future but also about the present impacts of climate change.

Does the member agree that the climate crisis poses a serious threat to our environment, our health and our economy?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very important to be clear about the areas on which we agree and the areas on which we disagree. Conservatives agree that we should work toward that 2050 net-zero target, but the difference between our parties is that New Democrats seem to believe that the way to get there is to shut down highly productive parts of our economy and simply allow that energy to be produced in less clean, less effective ways in other parts of the world.

Conservatives do not believe that we should get to net zero by shutting down our economy. We believe we should work toward that goal by technological improvement through things like carbon capture and storage and green technologies that can work within and in concert with our energy sector to address the challenges we face, while providing people all over the world with the energy that they vitally need.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join members from beautiful Edmonton Riverbend, albeit it is a little snowy here today.

I am pleased to participate in the debate to speak to Bill C-12. I want to start specifically by addressing how bills like this impact my home province of Alberta.

Most Canadians are aware of how tough the times have been here in Alberta over the past several years. Thousands upon thousands of jobs have been lost in the energy sector and my city of Edmonton has an unemployment rate of over 12%. Calgary is about the same. These two cities already had some of the highest unemployment rates in the country before the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has made the situation even worse. Unfortunately, many businesses will not reopen and many Albertans will have no jobs to return to after the pandemic is over.

Why have times been so tough for Alberta? Federal government legislation that appeared designed to decimate the energy industry and rapidly deplete the oil and gas industry has been introduced. Bill C-69 overhauled federal environmental assessment processes for construction projects, effectively deterring investment in Alberta. Bill C-48 bars oil tankers from loading at ports in northern B.C., making it impossible to export Alberta oil to new markets. On top of all that, we suffered through a regulatory attack like no other from the Notley NDP government, which really set us back decades. Just as all this was occurring, the government announced a new clean fuel standard, which is yet another blow to Alberta.

Honestly, it will be impossible for Alberta to fully recover, with yet more regulation that makes our province unattractive to investors. Our leading-edge energy industry will not be competitive against other countries if we have so many regulations tacked on by the federal government.

To help counteract this attack, the Alberta government just launched a natural gas strategy that would see the province become a leader in hydrogen production and liquefied natural gas for export. Natural gas will be regulated under the clean fuel standard. No other jurisdiction in the world is applying this type of standard to liquefied natural gas. However, the clean fuel standard will once again exacerbate the economic depression, as reported by Canadians for Affordable Energy, which estimates this standard will cause 30,000 job losses nationally and at least $20 billion of capital will leave Canada. Alberta will disproportionately experience this loss, but all Canada will be impacted.

I agree with my colleagues across the aisle that it is well intentioned to strive toward net-zero emissions. However, we do differ on how to get there. Harnessing the energy sector and its talent is, in my opinion, key to meeting that target. We must include energy industry stakeholders when developing any environmental plans. From what we have been hearing initially on Bill C-12, the government has failed to do just that.

At the end of the day, climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. For decades more, the world will continue to use oil and gas. The question then becomes as to whether energy will come from democratic countries like Canada with strong environmental protections or from dictatorships with no environmental protections or respect for human rights.

Domestic energy production, including oil and gas, is an important part of making our country more self-reliant and more resilient in the future. In today's world, we cannot afford to become reliant on energy from any other countries and, quite honestly, we have no need to. Getting to net-zero emissions in the energy industry requires a plan, not just a plan to have a plan. What we see here is a mission to develop a plan in the future and the government's plan is already being poked full of holes. The focus could have been on harnessing energy and the use of technologies from sources such as nuclear and wind carbon capture, with the government providing incentives similar to those that were used to stimulate the early development of the oil sands. Many governments have a long record of practical and successful environmental initiatives.

Under our previous Conservative government, Canada successfully tackled acid rain, expanded national parks and removed dangerous chemicals from the biosphere. We must persevere on our shared environment for future generations without sacrificing the jobs Canadians need today or damaging the economic engine that helps fund our vital social programs.

Our recent report from the Canada Energy Regulator found that, even with policies in place to curb emissions, oil and gas will still make up two-thirds of energy sources in 2050. This report also found that there will be increased demand for natural gas, which I mentioned before as a fuel that will become more heavily regulated under the clean fuel standard. This is again a deterrent for investors in foreign markets. We have an opportunity to help with emissions globally, by being part of the switch from coal-fired plants in Asia and other parts of the world to natural gas, a much cleaner form of energy.

Exporting our natural gas, technology and talent to other parts of the world will go a long way in the fight against climate change. Removing coal-fired plants makes a huge dent in emissions globally. We all agree everyone has a role to play in tackling climate change and Canada is no exception, but aggressively regulating our energy industry when there is still known demand for its products is short-sighted.

We can do more good globally by using our technologies in oil and gas to help tackle climate change both abroad and in Canada than by abruptly shutting it down. Natural gas is a huge opportunity for Canada to be a world player in other markets. More excessive regulation by the federal government not only hinders this opportunity but threatens the livelihoods of many Canadian families.

The bill before us would set targets to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. This is a laudable goal and I want to be clear it is one I fully support, but it is once again a big shiny object over here being used to distract Canadians when the government cannot be clear on what the vision of its plan is to get there.

Is this a bill to strike a 12-person committee? If it is, then be honest and tell us that. Do not promise this is a visionary piece of legislation that requires three ministers to walk across an open field that some communications person somewhere decided would make good optics to distract the Canadian public.

We see the government continue to make new environmental commitments, while still failing to meet its previous climate promises. The government's own projections show it is not even close to meeting its current commitments, yet it is setting new targets that are higher and even further into the future. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada is on track to significantly miss its 2030 emissions commitments. What about the two billion trees promised in the last election? I have not seen a single tree planted by these guys. Actually, there is not even a plan to plant a tree, let alone a budget to do it.

I, for one, would really like to work with my colleagues across the aisle to produce a comprehensive plan to tackle greenhouse gas emissions and to meet net-zero emissions by 2050. I have kids and I desperately want their future to include a safe and healthy environment. It is hard to support the government when it delivers an optical illusion of a plan that continues to include more regulations and taxes that hurt our economy by deterring investment in Canada. Life has become more expensive for Canadians as a result. Eventually Canadians are going to ask, “At what cost?”

I truly believe here in Canada we can develop a plan that harnesses the technology and brainpower of our energy industry to help other countries transition to energy sources that are much less harmful to the environment. We can make Canada and Canadian energy independent instead of importing oil from countries with brutal regimes and human rights abuses. We can remove regulations and red tape, and at the same time make Canada more attractive for international investment.

I am here and fully on board with achieving a net-zero goal. We can do this by creating a comprehensive plan and policies. We simply need the government to work with us in opposition as opposed to continually pretending to the world it cares without any necessary targets required. I plead to the government to please consider working with us, especially at the environment committee, to strengthen the bill so we get it right for all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, on the day the bill was released, the member for Edmonton Riverbend tweeted a question on Twitter asking if net zero was achievable by 2050. Then we listen to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, and it seems to me there is a lack of commitment to be able to achieve that net-zero target.

I am wondering if my friend from across the way can provide his thoughts on whether the Conservative Party would be committed to hitting the target of zero emissions by 2050.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, through you to the parliamentary secretary, forgive me for consulting with my constituents on certain questions that are before the House.

Obviously my personal view is that we can certainly get to net zero, but it is working with the opposition. It is not going through with a photo op of walking across a field pretending this is something that is visionary. There is no plan here.

We are hearing over and over again in Alberta that this, on top of everything else that has already been put on us, is just so debilitating to jobs and the economy. We have already suffered through Bill C-69 and BillC-48, the clean fuel standards and now this: a plan to have a plan. Again, I want to make sure we get this right. I am more than prepared to work with the government to do that, but we need to do it and we need to it soon.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

I must say that I do not agree with several elements of his speech, including the idea of continuing to develop fossil fuels. We must free ourselves from our dependency on fossil fuels, because we have other resources at our disposal.

According to Climate Transparency, Canada has the highest per capita GHG emissions of any G20 country. We must act. Someone once said, “I would put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we do not have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.” This was Thomas Edison speaking in 1931. We are just 90 years behind.

We have a variety of energy sources in Canada, and we should quickly look to using biomass, wind, solar, geothermal and other types of energy. What does my colleague think of that?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, I share a lot of time together with my colleague at the environment committee. It is nice to see her.

Industry is already onside. It is not this adversarial relationship, which I think a lot of people across the country envision it to be. The energy sector is not pushing back against provinces like Quebec and environmental groups. It is essentially working toward this target already.

I will share a quote. Cenovus Energy said, “Cenovus’s long-term ambition is to reach net zero emissions by 2050.”

Canadian Natural Resources Limited says, “With a strong commitment to reducing GHG emissions, our long-term aspirational target is net zero emissions in our oil sands operations.”

To say that the oil and gas sector in my province is the problem and that it ignores everything else is completely false. It certainly has been working at this for a very long time, ensuring we get this right.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives say that they are worried about how much getting to net zero will cost. We have heard projections that right now it is costing $5 billion a year, in wild fires, in flooding, in the various impacts of climate change. The predictions have indicated that it will be $21 billion to $43 billion a year by year 2050. That means we are running huge deficits for the future.

Does my colleague not agree that it is fiscally irresponsible for us to not take action now to tackle climate change?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would advise him and the New Democratic Party to look at the costs already. I quoted the unemployment numbers in my city. It is at 12%. Twelve per cent of the people we run into in my city are unemployed. This is a heavy energy sector. A lot of people who live here work up in Fort McMurray. Calgary is much the same. We are seeing more and more of this already because of the last five years of increased regulation by the Liberal government.

It is frustrating, because we want to do more. However, we certainly need to work together to get this right.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Halifax.

I have a number of thoughts that I would like to share with the House in regard to Bill C-12, noting that the government's first priority and focus continues to be on the pandemic. There should be no doubt about that.

It has been interesting as we have been dealing with legislation over the last couple of weeks and today. Once again, we are bringing forward somewhat historic legislation, this time dealing with a very important issue related to the environment, of which I know Canadians, as a whole, would be very supportive. I am absolutely confident of that fact. However, when we look back at the legislative agenda and the types of legislation we have brought forward. I find interesting to witness some of the voting that takes place.

For example, related to the pandemic, we had the wage loss and rent assistance program legislation, which was critically important. It received the unanimous support in the House and was passed. It was consider in committee, it went through third reading, was sent to the Senate and received royal assent. That is good news for small businesses in all regions of our country.

Then we have this legislation, Bill C-12. It seems there are different attitudes on this bill. In listening to the Conservative critic, I believe the Conservative party will support the legislation going to committee. On the other hand, it was interesting hearing the former leader of the Green party say that she would not be supporting the legislation. The NDP and the Bloc will support the legislation going to committee at least.

Therefore, on the surface, it seems that we recognize the value and the importance of this legislation. It was really quite encouraging when the minister indicated to all members of the House, like other ministers, that if the opposition wanted to be constructive and work collaboratively with the government, the government was very open to ideas and ways to make the legislation even better.

However, let us be very clear. If we look at the last federal election, the leader of the Liberal party, today's Prime Minister, indicated that we wanted to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and that we would bring in a legislative framework that would allow that to happen. Bill C-12 is yet another fulfillment of that election commitment. As I said, I believe Canadians would be very supportive of this.

This is an important issue, if members think of carbon and what it does to our atmosphere. Reference has been made to two ways we can deal with it, such as carbon capture and storage. Incredible companies and individuals have looked at ways technology could advance the capture and storage of carbon. Another way is through nature, such as tree planting. I would encourage my colleagues across the way to stay tuned. They will hear more about tree planting going forward. I have had the opportunity to participate in tree planting ceremonies or activities in the last year.

Net zero by 2050 is achievable. This legislation allows us to set that framework in which we will see regulations. It would create a very important advisory body, which would include individuals of stature, to look at achieving net-zero emissions. It would provide the current government, and hopefully future governments, the opportunity to ensure we stay on target.

Yesterday, during the debate, I heard a Conservative member say that we had to ensure someone from the oil and gas industry would be on that board. The Conservative Party said that it was an absolute necessity; it was not an option. Then the NDP critic said absolutely not, that there should not be executive members from the industry on that board. That was the essence of what she said.

This is not new. Often we get extreme positions coming from the New Democrats and the Conservatives that are completely opposite. What they do not necessarily realize is that the best way to secure the economic development we desire collectively is to recognize the importance of the environment. If we work with stakeholders, we can achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

I would encourage both members who spoke on behalf of their respective parties to read what the minister clearly indicated; and that is that we will have levels of expertise on that advisory group, which will include industry representation.

I asked a question of the previous Conservative member about a tweet yesterday. It was from the member for Edmonton Riverbend. We introduced the legislation and the member planted a seed of doubt by asking if it was even achievable. I then listen to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. From a Conservative perspective, no doubt it was a great speech. For those who want net-zero emissions by 2050, not so.

In fact, we should all be concerned about what the member said in his speech. He said that it was no problem. Heaven forbid the Conservatives form the next government. They could wipe out the legislation through their budget. The member has somewhat implied this, that they do not have to live up to the legislation the Liberals are putting into law today. After all, a future Conservative government could incorporate the wiping out of this legislation in a future Conservative budget bill. That raises a few red flags.

The Conservative Party needs to tell Canadians exactly what its intent is. Will the Conservatives stand by this legislation? Based on what I have heard, I am not convinced the official opposition is committed to net-zero emissions by 2050.

The Conservatives are already planning ways to can get out of the legislation. The critic has said that the Conservatives have a number of changes they would like to make. We look forward to seeing those amendments once it gets to committee stage.

We have targets, the first one being in 2030. Within the next six months, we will see how achievable it is. Once we get to 2030, every five years after that it will be renewed. Therefore, there is a high sense of accountability. Those annual reports from the advisory body will also ensure there is more accountability and transparency. Unlike the Conservative Party, this government takes the issue seriously.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do want to remind the hon. members that when someone has the floor, to please hold their thoughts and wait to ask questions later. A lot of heckling was going on, and that is unacceptable.

Questions and comments; the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg for his lucid thoughts today.

He mentioned the accountability and transparency of the government. We have asked for details on its carbon tax. The member for Carleton called it the carbon tax cover-up. The government has never given any of them.

The member continues to talk about how much action the Liberals have taken. With the bill, they are going to create an advisory board to help guide the minister. Have they been basing all their decisions on just their own input?

Oil and gas includes B.C. LNG and includes coprocessing. Will the member commit to pushing the minister to ensure there is a place for industry, with a significant role, on the advisory panel?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the price on pollution and I would like to throw that example back at him. In the first five years, we had a pan-Canadian approach. We worked with provinces and ultimately put into place a price on pollution. Only the national Conservative Party of Canada was outright against a price on pollution. Shame on them for not recognizing it.

In our first mandate, we also emphasized the importance of public transit and a phasing out of coal. The Conservatives are consistently found wanting when it comes the dealing sincerely and genuinely with our environment.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-12 follows the classic Liberal pattern. It is not an action plan; it is an intention plan. I have long had the intention of exercising, but I have not done it. It is important to be aware of the difference.

The bill talks about requiring the setting of national targets. It does not talk about setting a national target of 30% by 2050 compared to 2005 levels, as the Bloc Québécois has proposed.

Our colleague also mentioned carbon capture. Over the past four years, the government has invested $24 billion to support the oil and gas sector, but during the same period, it has invested just $950 million to support the forestry industry, which is the best industry for capturing carbon.

I repeat, this bill is not an action plan; it is an intention plan.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is not being fair regarding what the legislation is ultimately doing. At the end of the day, with this legislation we are putting together an advisory body. We are putting into legislation a law that would ultimately ensure that we head toward our target of net zero by 2050. I see that as a positive thing. I suspect it is one of the reasons the Bloc, from what I understand, is supporting the legislation.

We are hopeful that we will continue to get support from the Bloc and other parties once we get into committee, where we will be open to ideas. However, the false impression that the bill is not of substance is, I think, a real stretch.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way mentioned that the last question was not fair. I am curious if he thinks it is fair to Canadians to put off climate accountability for 10 years.

The Liberals are saying they are putting in five-year milestones, but for some reason they left out 2025. The world's top scientists are saying the next decade is the most important if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change, so why are the Liberals leaving out the most important years?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we should be careful when we use the word “hypothetically”, but, hypothetically, if we had said 2025 the member would have said, “Well, why not 2022?” There is never, ever any pleasing the New Democrats.

At the end of the day, this is a reasonable target. We are talking about 2050. Within the next six months we will have a well-established strategy going forward. Once we hit 2030, it will be every five years afterward. The bill would create an advisory body that will ensure there is an annual report, which also includes a higher sense of accountability.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, I come to this esteemed chamber from Halifax, the heart of our great nation's maritime coast, Canada's ocean city and my hometown.

We are a city shaped by the ocean. Our jagged coastline cuts into the Atlantic where surf-pounding shores are home to a proud people whose livelihoods for generations have relied on those deep blue waters. Along my riding's shoreline, there is cove after cove, including Ferguson's Cove, Herring Cove, Fairview Cove, Portuguese Cove, Duncan's Cove, Sandy Cove, and on and on, and the great Halifax Harbour and Bedford Basin. Each one is unique in its own way, but they are brought together by a shared identity as coastal communities.

In my time as a member of Parliament, I have spent untold hours in these communities, knocking on doors or attending the many festivals and neighbourhood events, like the famous swordfish supper in Sambro. However, in recent years, with greater frequency, there is another reason I travel to these communities, and it is one that brings me no joy at all. In what has become a troubling routine, I find myself putting on my rain jacket and boots and heading out to these communities to survey the wreckage from the latest hurricane and the damage to my constituents' homes, fish shacks, wharves and boats.

In 2019, following Hurricane Dorian, I remember standing on a bridge in Herring Cove alongside constituents as we watched a detached roof float by us. The storm surge from that hurricane had compromised the breakwater protecting the cove and had lifted whole fish shacks from their resting places, smashing them against the rocky shoreline. We watched as one family climbed onto the splintered wood of their now unanchored fish shack, floating in the cove, to collect what few belongings remained.

Last week, I met with a group of constituents in Ketch Harbour to discuss the ongoing efforts to rebuild the community wharf that was destroyed in the same hurricane, more than a year ago. It was a devastating blow to a community that relied on that wharf as its town square. Earlier that summer, my daughter and I had enjoyed ice cream cones purchased from a makeshift ice cream stand on the wharf, with the proceeds funding the local community hall. However, the wharf is gone, at least for now.

I could tell story after story about how extreme weather events have impacted my city and constituents. I know my colleagues in the House understand this experience too, for many have taken on the same heartbreaking routine in their own communities, whether it is helping to mobilize volunteers to sandbag shorelines against 100-year floods now occurring nearly every year, or working to protect whole towns, forests and national parks from raging climate fires. The stories of devastation go on and on.

The science is clear: Climate change is escalating the severity and frequency of these severe weather events. For a coastal riding like mine, it is a flashing red alarm and all hands on deck. We are in a crisis, and we must act urgently to reduce emissions, fight climate change and protect our communities. At its core, that is the matter before the House today with Bill C-12.

Hurricane Dorian hit Halifax just days before the 2019 election, and in that electoral race, our party, the Liberal Party, released its plan to continue our work to fight climate change. In our first mandate, we enacted the strongest climate plan of any government in Canadian history, as the moment required, with over 50 measures, including pricing carbon pollution, phasing out coal, protecting nature, investing in renewables and putting a climate lens on government-funded infrastructure, a measure quite personal for me. It was born out of a private member's motion I had passed in my first year as a member of Parliament, Motion No. 45.

We turned the tide of inaction after 10 years under the Conservatives. Still, we recognized at the end of our first mandate that we needed to go further, and faster. Time, after all, is not on our side.

Today, as we debate Bill C-12 at second reading, we are carrying out one of the key promises we made to Canadians in 2019 when they looked at our record and plan and elected our Liberal government to do what is necessary to fight climate change again.

Included in our platform was a promise to exceed Canada's 2030 emissions goals, while setting legally binding, five-year milestones to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, is a key step in ensuring that we reach that target, fulfill our promise and get to net zero by 2050.

I would like to speak about the measures within Bill C-12.

The act would require that national targets and plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada be put in place with the target of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. It would further require that the government make available, for the public to see and assess, its planning and progress toward those stated targets.

The act would require the government to establish its 2030 target within six months of the act's coming into effect, along with its emission reduction plan, and by 2027, the government would be required to publish its first progress report under the act. From there, in 2035, 2040 and 2045, the government would be required to set targets and provide its plan to get there by the subsequent five-year milestone.

The act would include a number of important accountability measures that impose consequences on any government that does not achieve its target. In such a scenario, the act requires that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will provide an assessment report to Canadians that includes the reason why, in their view, Canada failed to meet its target and a description of the steps the government is taking or will take to address the failure to achieve the target.

In recognizing the important role of Parliament and officers of Parliament, the act would also require the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, supported by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, to examine and report on the government's implementation of the measures it includes in its plan to reach its targets. Further, input from Canadians is essential to climate accountability, and to this end the act establishes an independent net-zero advisory body, a group of up to 15 experts from across the country in fields such as business, labour, indigenous knowledge and clean technology. It will include environmental leaders. This advisory body would provide advice in an annual public report, and an official government response would be required.

The purpose of the bill is to provide accountability and transparency to Canadians as their federal government, today and in the future, works to reduce emissions and fight climate change. It is what Canadians want and it is what we owe Canadians as we face one of the most urgent crises of our lifetimes.

I would like to speak briefly now to the current state of climate politics in Canada.

When I consider the massive challenge before us, I am troubled by the degree to which politicization of the issue of climate change has led to gridlock, inconsistency and inaction across governments as far back as the 1990s. This trend is not unique to the federal government or to Canada, but it is one that we must overcome.

Action on climate should not be political. It should not be ideological. It should be based on science, based on evidence and based on all of us as parliamentarians looking out for the well-being of the people we represent in this place.

I think about the constituents I mentioned earlier, those I stood with on the bridge in Herring Cove following Hurricane Dorian. They did not care if I was a Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat or Green. They wanted to know what I was going to do as their representative in this place to help them, stop this crisis, fight climate change and protect our environment for future generations.

I believe the legislation we are discussing today, Bill C-12, will hold all governments accountable regardless of political stripe, accountable to Parliament and accountable to Canadians, today and in the future. I look forward to debate on the bill here and at committee, and I will remain hopeful that all members will come together in the interests of the people they represent to act and act now.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague very carefully. Of course, he comes from a very beautiful part of the country and he described it eloquently.

My one concern is that the government is typically very good with words and symbolism. I am going to give a specific example. One would think that if we commit to planting a certain number of trees, it is not actually that difficult a task to do. The provinces do this in Canada every year.

If you promise to plant trees and cannot actually follow through, how can Canadians ever trust you in something that is so much more difficult to do and more complex? We have a little cynicism as we listen to the debate today, so maybe you can tell us what is so difficult about following through with your commitment to plant trees.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. member to address the questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, going back to the 2015 election cycle, I note the Liberal Party promised that if Canadians sent them here to be their government, we would take the most dramatic action on climate change the country has ever seen, and this is just what we did.

There are plenty of reasons to believe we will follow through on our commitments. We provided $28 billion to support urban transit, $26 billion in green infrastructure, investments in smart grids and green vehicles, a $2-billion low-carbon economy fund, $1.5 million for the oceans protection plan, over $1 billion for nature conservancy and protection of biodiversity, and over $2 billion to support clean technology in Canada. I could go on and on; the list is pages long.

There are plenty of reasons for Canadians to understand that we will follow through on our commitments.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that all of us, or almost all of us, agree that Bill C-12 has some interesting elements.

However, I do have one concern. I think it is insane to put off the targets until 2050 or use 2050 as a deadline. Things are changing and moving so fast, and 2050 is 30 years away. If we do the math, 30 years from now, Canada will probably have gone through 12 to 15 successive Liberal or Conservative governments. Obviously, we will be independent by then, but I am referring to them.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this. Climate change is the number one global priority. We talk about it constantly, and there will be more bills. How can we even consider such a long-term mission? We are talking about 30 years. I cannot buy that.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is asking if it is possible for Canada to hit this target. Of course it is not going to be easy, but we can and will achieve it. We are going to be working with Canadians across the country. It is what they expect and have asked of all of us.

The target is, as he said, 30 years into the future. I would tell him to look at the progress we have made on some of the things that I have already listed: clean power, action on the environment and on habitat. We are going to be drawing on the experience and expertise of Canadians across the country to make this happen, and we are very confident that we can do it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, the number one location in the world for a solar economy is south central Alberta. When I was in Edmonton, I met with energy workers who were frustrated because they are being sold down the river by the ideology of the Jason Kenney government. We see large international investors walking away from Alberta because of a lack of commitment.

The energy workers I met with are retraining themselves for a clean energy future. They asked me where the government is, both federal and provincial, with the huge opportunities there are to retool the economy in the west. Jason Kenney is not going to do it, we know that. The question is: Where is the federal government on the investments we need to start building solar and wind energy projects in the west?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, a number of Canadian oil and gas companies have already made commitments to net-zero emissions, including Enbridge, Suncor and Shell. They are innovating. They are rising to the challenge right in the very heart of Alberta. That is why we heard in the throne speech that this government will be undertaking the largest upscaling and rescaling of the Canadian workforce that we have ever seen, investing more in that effort than has ever been invested before.

The truth is that we cannot get to net-zero without the ingenuity and know-how of Canada's energy sector and its very smart workers.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan.

Bill C-12, which we are discussing, purports to improve transparency and accountability as the government moves towards a net zero target by the year 2050, which of course is 30 years down the road.

Before I get into the details of the bill, I just want to say that we, as Conservatives, acknowledge that Canadians love their environment and love their open spaces. As a father of four daughters, when I was a little younger, I spent a ton of time walking mountain ridges, hiking through valleys and on our lakes and rivers. We have done it all through beautiful British Columbia. We love our environment. I want to preserve that environment, not only for my daughters but for my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

I believe Canadians are responsible. They want a responsible approach to protecting our environment while not sacrificing our long-term prosperity and the jobs that prosperity creates. As we move forward with a net zero project, we want to make sure that it is our own environmental plan: a Canadian plan, driven by Canadian stakeholders and Canadian citizens, not by activist groups that in many cases are funded by foreign sources. We want this to be a homegrown solution.

When I talk about solutions, this is a global problem that calls for a global solution. The Liberal government has always been focused inward. It asks what we are doing in Canada, not what can we do for the world. We have all kinds of opportunities to solve that global problem.

Let me get back to the legislation itself and highlight three important elements within it. First, the legislation would require current and future federal governments to establish a framework to get Canada to net zero carbon emissions. Let us be clear, this framework is not an action plan and it certainly does not identify any additional tools that the government might use in reaching its 2050 target.

What does it mean to be net zero? I am going to try to briefly summarize what that is. It is a situation where the greenhouse gases that are caused by humans are balanced, or offset, by human intervention to remove the carbon from our environment. There are many different ways we could do that. Perhaps the most obvious is to plant a tree or trees, because trees sequester carbon dioxide and store that carbon within their trunks and branches. That is a simple situation that every Canadian would understand.

However, Canada has many other areas where it is a world leader. Carbon sequestration can take place in things such as zero-till farming. Our farmers are leaders in this area of reducing tillage to make sure that we are not emitting more carbon than we absolutely have to.

We have some wonderful examples of carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS as it is called, in Canada, such as the Boundary Dam project in Saskatchewan, and Carbon Engineering in Squamish, British Columbia, close to where I live and where I often ski.

These are opportunities for Canadian companies that have found a way of extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or from emissions, and reusing it. They are repurposing that carbon in other ways. For example, in Squamish, Carbon Engineering simply sucks the carbon dioxide out of the air. The company adds hydrogen and creates a new fuel. It is the cleanest fuel, and it can be used in something as simple as a car.

Clean fuels. Canadian innovation. That is something we do not hear a lot about from the Liberals. All they talk about is taxing. They make plans but those plans never materialize. The Liberals have had five years.

Canada is also a leader in such things as hydrogen and nuclear technology. I am talking about 21st-century nuclear technology: modular nuclear technology that is safe to use. There is tremendous potential in that area.

The second thing this legislation does is call for the creation of an outside 15-member advisory board. Where have we heard that before? Let us remember the great electoral reform project that the Prime Minister touted in 2015 during the election. The 2015 election was going to be the last time we were going to have elections under the first past the post system. He established a committee that was supposed to consult with Canadians, but the fix was in because he already had a preferred method that was going to favour Liberals. When the committee brought in the information that it had received from key stakeholders, he realized it was not going the way he thought it would, so he dropped the whole thing and fired his minister. That is what we get from the current Liberal government.

That is my fear. That is why I am skeptical about this legislation and especially this 15-member advisory board. Who is going to be on that board? Why will the Liberals not tell us? Will there be industry leaders on that board? Will the oil and gas industry be represented? Will they appoint members who are not married to the Liberal Party or insiders, such as Gerald Butts' friends, for example? Are they the ones who are going to populate this board? If so, this is going to turn into another disaster like electoral reform.

The second question I have on that particular issue is, why did the government not table a framework and a plan back in 2015? The government has had five years to table a plan to move forward to provide Canadians with the tools they need so that we can reduce our emissions across Canada. There is a very easy answer to that question. It is because the government has failed to meet the targets that the Liberals themselves set at the Paris climate conference.

I was at that conference. I joined the Canadian delegation. I wanted to see what was going on there. The Liberal government had taken the Stephen Harper targets, which were going to be the floor, and the moment they got back from Paris the Liberals were going to ratchet up those targets. What happened is that we still have the same targets. There was no intention of making the targets stricter. Today we know from virtually every organization that is credible, including the IPCC, the Auditor General of Canada, the Climate Change Commissioner and even the government itself, that it is far from meeting the Paris targets that were set for 2030. What makes Canadians believe that the current Liberal government is going to meet its 2050 targets?

Why is the Prime Minister making another promise that we know he will never be around to fulfill? That is the question Canadians should be asking themselves.

Conservatives in the House support this legislation. It is not because we trust the Liberals: we expect they are going to monkey around with this, as they normally do. However, this legislation is intended to increase transparency and accountability as Canada moves forward with its 2050 targets.

This is the problem with transparency and accountability. As my colleagues in the House will remember when the government was first elected in 2015, the government provided mandate letters for every minister, then and since, that say the Prime Minister expects them to raise the bar on openness, transparency and honesty. It is baked right into those mandate letters. I refresh myself by reading them from time to time. I want to make sure that the Prime Minister actually did that, because what we have today is the most unethical government our country has ever seen.

The Prime Minister himself, on three occasions, has been charged with violating or is alleged to have violated the ethics laws of Canada. Twice, he has been convicted. There is a third case pending, and we expect he will be convicted on that one as well.

He is the first Prime Minister in Canadian history to whom this has happened. It is an ethical failure. How can we expect the Liberal government to fulfill its commitments to transparency and accountability in this legislation, Bill C-12? If Canadians are watching this today, they are going to start scratching their heads and asking themselves how many times the Prime Minister has promised and not delivered. He has become the chief promise breaker of this country. It is a sad reflection on our country.

Some have described this legislation as a “nothing burger”, as there is really nothing to it, just like Seinfeld, but I will conclude by saying this: We support this legislation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have already allowed additional time for the member. Maybe he will be able to add more through questions and comments.

Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to speak today in the House. I have a couple of comments and two questions in particular.

The hon. member spoke to how he loves to take walks, appreciates nature and wants to protect our environment for future generations. My first question is this: Why has he and the Conservative Party of Canada voted against every single measure we have put in place to meet the challenges of climate change, such as a price on carbon pollution, a budget that put in place record investments in public transportation and others?

The second question is with respect to the balance he would like to achieve of protecting the environment and supporting the economy. How does the hon. member reconcile the Conservative Party's opposition to this bill and many others, and its approach toward companies like Shell, which has recently come forward with its own 2050 goals and milestones, and the many industries that are stepping up to meet the challenge every day?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, is the parliamentary secretary reading off talking points? He obviously did not listen to my speech. Although I am a skeptic, we are supporting this legislation.

To get back to the parliamentary secretary's first question as to why we have voted against the government's legislation, it is because its environment legislation is invariably tied to more taxes for Canadians, such as the carbon tax and the clean fuel standard. The list goes on, and this will continue. Canadians should prepare themselves because under a Liberal government there will be more taxes placed on their shoulders. That is why we do not support the legislation. It is deeply flawed.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I grew up surrounded by nature. There were mountains, lakes, rivers and forests as far as the eye could see. The environment has been one of my chief concerns since I was a little girl. However, growing up in a remote community meant that we could not be as environmentally responsible as we wanted to. When we were very young, we learned how important it was to take care of the environment for future generations. There was the Kyoto protocol in 2005 and the Paris Agreement in 2016. We have a duty to take care of our environment because we are only borrowing it from our children, yet we are putting off our responsibility until 2050.

Can my hon. colleague tell me what measures could be introduced quickly, well before 2050, to truly make the environment a top priority for the sake of future generations?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for that excellent question, which I take seriously. I also do not want to pre-empt our new leader from coming up with a climate plan that makes sense and does not impose a massive tax burden on Canadians.

We intend to come forward with a plan that is committed to our 2030 targets. We aspire to also get to net zero by 2050. We are supporting the legislation, but we will build a climate policy that respects the provinces and territories, focuses on making industry pay, not consumers and ordinary Canadians, and includes market-based principles to incentivize positive economic and environmental change in Canada.

I hope that answers the member's question.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know wildfires, flooding and drought are having huge impacts right across our country, especially for wild Pacific salmon, which my colleague cares deeply about.

Right now we are running huge environmental deficits to future generations. We need real action, urgent action. There is no real accountability with this bill when it comes to a milestone target, and 2030 is too far out. We will not even be able to check in until 2028 to see how we are doing.

Does my colleague agree we should be having a milestone target of 2025 so we can measure where the government is? Also, what recommendations does he have beyond just technology? Does he not see the sense of urgency that we need to take on so we are not leaving huge deficits to future generations?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I share a province, a beautiful province, and we both share a deep concern for the declining wild salmon populations on the west coast. From time to time, we get to work together in moving forward with policies that are hopefully going to make a difference there for the salmon.

With respect to there being no accountability, he is absolutely right. This legislation purports to establish accountability and transparency measures, but in fact there is nothing in the government's history that would indicate it is prepared to actually follow through on that.

On whether to set a target for 2025, the government did not even meet its 2020 target, and it is way off its 2030 target. It is missing it by a country mile. Why would we set another target? We want to see action and results.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to start off with a quote from George Bernard Shaw: “We are made wise not by the recollection of our past but by the responsibility for our future.” I think that is a timely comment as we are talking about a bill that is not going to take effect until 2050.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-12, the important issue of climate change and how we must rise to meet the challenge of the country. I want to take this important time to point out some things about Canadian energy producers and why our industry can be a part of the solution to climate change, not a contributor to the world problem.

First off, we cannot talk about climate change without acknowledging that this is truly a global issue. The atmosphere cannot distinguish between two sides of a political border or even opposite sides of the planet. Environmental policy abroad impacts us here at home, and vice versa. When it comes to the planet, all of humanity is interconnected, whether we like it or not.

There is no question that Canada must do its part to fight climate change through increasing the use of renewable resources, employing Saskatchewan's innovative carbon capture and storage technology, expanding our use of nuclear power generation and using new technology to make our existing infrastructure greener and more efficient. I am confident that we can, should and will be leaders in the fight on climate change.

I will say once again that climate change occurs, and human activity influences this. However, our strategy must always keep the global nature of this problem in mind. Canada is not an island and cannot assume that rivals, or even allies, will follow our lead. We need to work with countries from around the world collaboratively to find ways that Canada can minimize environmental impact in the short term while investing in long-term solutions.

When we measure the total life-cycle emissions of liquefied natural gas and coal based on extraction, production, shipping and burning, liquefied natural gas burns roughly 40% cleaner than coal. If Canada were to expand its production capacity and increase LNG exports to developing countries currently using coal to bring electricity to underdeveloped regions, we would be taking a huge step forward, a concrete step in reducing emissions in the short term.

China currently has a coal-fired electrical generating capacity four times larger than the United States' and plans to increase that number by over 25% in the coming years. If only a quarter of China's coal-fired plants transitioned to liquefied natural gas, it would result in emission reductions of around 750 megatonnes per year, based on current levels. For reference, Canada's total emissions in 2019 were 729 megatonnes.

The old saying “perfect is the enemy of the good” comes to mind here. While this government repeatedly fails to meet its emissions reduction targets, our energy industry, which is a world leader in environmental sustainability, continues to be crippled by regulations like Bill C-48, Bill C-69 and the ineffective job-killing carbon tax.

Instead of leading a global strategy to reduce emissions based on research and development, technological innovation, and finding economically viable climate solutions, the Liberal government has reduced Canada's ability to compete and receive a market share with countries with zero track record when it comes to fighting global emissions.

Canada needs to strive toward energy independence, create a business environment that mobilizes green innovation in the private sector and export those green innovations around the world. Shutting down energy production in Canada would do nothing to impact the behaviour of countries whose entire economies relies on oil production. If anything, it would drive up global oil prices due to decreased supply and create even more incentive for oil production abroad.

Until we have long-term renewable energy solutions that are economically viable, natural resources such as oil and natural gas will continue to be a part of our way of life. It is not a matter of choice, but a matter of necessity. None of this is to say that it is acceptable to sit back and do nothing about this issue.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle often scapegoat Conservatives as people who are indifferent about the environment or claim that we do not care about our children's future. Nothing could be further from the truth. We care, and we also want to work hard to bring our climate crisis under control.

We need to find solutions to these problems to guarantee the future of my three children, James, Sinclair and Nixon, alongside that of every child in Canada. We want them to grow up on a healthy planet.

We need to reduce global emissions to avoid reaching the point of no return. I also know that Canada cannot sabotage our own industries as the rest of the world sits back. We cannot be the only country making drastic changes to our energy production capacity, and we cannot assume that we are setting an example for others. Currently, I cannot think of a single country that is looking to emulate Canada's emission reduction strategy and hamper its own ability to grow its economy.

If Canada wants to be a world leader in the fight against climate change, what we do to change our share of global emissions is not enough. We must invest in economically viable green energy solutions that we can export to the rest of the world. Canada has been behind countless green energy innovations. We have been an examples to the world.

One source of Canada's climate innovation is the careful management of our vast boreal forest spread across the country. Canada's network of forests is massive at over 347 million hectors, or 9% of the world's total forest area. Canadians continue to plant hundreds of millions of trees every year without the help of the federal government.

Canada's forest industry alone plants an additional 600 million trees every year, making its commercial activities sustainable for generations to come. Canadian energy companies are doing their part as well. Syncrude has planted 11 million trees, Suncor has planted 8.9 million trees, and the faster forests initiative has planted over five million trees, just to name a few.

Using forests as a natural climate solution is about keeping thriving forest ecosystems alive. Around 70% of carbon in the forest is stored within soil and debris on the forest floor. I know the government has set a target to plant two billion trees, but they have planted zero. Even on Father's Day, my wife asked me to plant five trees in our backyard, so I am doing more than our federal government.

Alongside capturing and storing carbon emissions, our forests are also home to another solution: biofuels. Canada exported 498.3 million dollars' worth of wood pellets in 2019, a solid renewable biofuel that grows back and recaptures the carbon that it emits when the biomass is burned.

I also want to talk about carbon capture and storage solutions. As a Saskatchewan MP, I am proud of the innovations we have made and are leading on this technological front. As an innovator and pioneer, Saskatchewan is proud of our carbon capture. Experts agree that carbon capture and storage is a solution that simply works.

Dr. Julio Friedmann, a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, says that when industrial facilities implement variations of this solution, they see emission reductions of between 55% to 90%. About 300 million tonnes of CO2 is captured from large-scale carbon capture, utilization and storage facilities every year. The technology is effective and could lead to real world emission reductions in the short term if we embrace it. The downside is that currently 70% of this is done in North America when it should be done throughout the world.

These are just a few examples of solutions that can drive economic activity, create jobs and act as long-term investments in emissions reductions. None of them involve new taxes, energy austerity or hurt our economy. In fact, all of the solutions I have raised would create new jobs and increase economic activity, instead of dampening it.

I believe in green innovation and I believe in clean technology, but I also know that shutting down Canadian oil and gas production would do nothing to change the course of history. The only way that Canada can have a meaningful impact on this issue is the same way we changed health care forever, through the development of revolutionary technologies like insulin and pacemakers. Both of these inventions saved millions of lives around the world and would have never been possible without Canadian ingenuity and perseverance.

We can meet these ambitious targets. I have unlimited faith in the sheer intelligence and capability of Canadians, but I also know that if we are not focused on solutions, we cannot be embraced by the rest of the world. It will be too little, too late, and our contributions will be in vain. We need the rest of the world to join us in our commitment to reducing emissions.

Net-zero emissions does not mean net-zero growth in the oil and gas industry, the agricultural industry and the manufacturing industry. We need to continue to rely on those very important sectors in our community.

For every step taken, we must take into account Canada's existing obligations to provide secure energy to all of our global customers.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to questions and comments, I want to make an observation that today's motion before the House is garnering, as one might imagine, great interest by hon. members, both here in the House and tuning in on Zoom. For that reason, I am going to ask members to keep their interventions to no more than about 45 seconds, both for questions and responses, so that we can at least have three questions in a five-minute period. We will try to do that to make sure that we are not pushing the time limits of other members who wish to participate in the debate today and in other days ahead.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke at great length about innovation and Liberals wholeheartedly agree that innovation will play a key role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, in addition to that, we have had top experts in the world, both in the scientific and economic fields, talk about the need to put a price on carbon pollution, to invest in public transportation and subsidies for electric vehicles and so forth, all of the things that my hon. colleague and the Conservative Party of Canada voted against.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague perhaps has a peer-reviewed study or some form of information that we are not aware of that would show that the only way to achieving net zero or reducing GHGs is by simply investing in innovation.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague did not have me on mute, because last time he said we were opposing the bill and had not listened to the speech by the member from B.C. who said we would support it.

A lot of times we have looked at the targets brought forward by the government and said we were not going to meet them. Conservatives have good ideas. We have an environmental plan that does not just tax Canadians, like the Liberals enjoy doing, increasing taxes every year. The carbon tax increases every April 1. It is the worst April Fool's Day joke in the country.

Conservatives continue to bring forward positive investments in innovation and technology to make sure we can meet our climate targets. Liberals are not even going to meet the targets they have made for 2030, so I will take no lessons from them.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the part of my colleague's speech on workers. Indeed, there will be no change if we do not think about workers.

However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2018 that we needed to leave 80% of fossil fuels in the ground if we wanted to meet the Paris Agreement targets. What does my colleague think of that? When he talks about exporting our energy resources can he move on to something other than fossil fuels?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I talked about biomass and wood pellets and naturally renewable fuels. I am extremely proud that my province is working hard to meet the target of 50% renewable energy for all of our power sources by 2030. We can all set targets.

Also, there is renewable energy that we can export from Manitoba, which is hydro, and hydroelectricity from Quebec. There are many options. I do not believe we need to leave 80% of our fossil fuels in the ground. That would absolutely damage our economy and would bear poorly for future generations in terms of having secure jobs in this country.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that the Conservatives have a climate plan, but in 2019, when they received grades on their election platform and climate policies, they got a D in emissions reductions.

This bill, which I hear the Conservatives are planning to support at least being sent to committee, does not have adequate accountability measures built in. I am wondering if the member agrees that we need to strengthen the advisory body, but also make the environment commissioner independent so that the Liberal government and future governments are actually going to be accountable to Canadians.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I can say is that she will not have to worry about the commissioner because the NDP will never be in government, first of all, but I am looking forward to the opportunity to maybe have discussions around what the commissioner should or should not be.

When they talk about a D for our climate plan in 2019, our climate plan was very good going forward. I have talked to groups across Saskatchewan and the country. They say that only 60% of Canadians voted for a climate plan. I do not believe that is true. I believe 100% of Canadians voted for a climate plan, because the Conservatives have one. I am looking forward to the next campaign to deliver an amazing environmental plan for Canadians from coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2009, the Harper government agreed to the Copenhagen targets to reduce emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by this year. All eight provinces and all of the territories, representing 85% of the population, met that target. However, two provinces actually increased their greenhouse gases to wipe out all of those other gains. They were Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Now British Columbia is joining with fracking the northeast to export LNG and it is going to blow its target right out of the water as well. I would like to know what the plan is. What happened to the Harper plan to meet those targets?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I fear that while many of my colleagues may have the video on when they are on Zoom, it might be on mute. I would really like to repeat my first comment: We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future.

I think my Green colleague should keep that in mind.

[William Amos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

This is a watershed moment in the history of Canada and the world. We know that, to deal with climate change, we must transform our communities and industries and this transformation comes with incredible potential for growth. We are on the eve of a financial and global economic realignment and we must act now to provide Canadian businesses a long-term competitive advantage and ensure that the use of smart and clean technologies increase in a draconian way immediately.

Canadian industries will have to make important decisions that will affect several generations, decisions on investments in assets that will last for decades much like the consequences of their emissions.

Our plan is simple. We are supporting Canadian industry and investing in the cleanest solutions that generate the least amount of emissions possible and at the same time establishing a clear legal framework through Bill C-12 to set national targets and develop plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada in order to achieve net-zero emissions within 25 years.

Net-zero emissions is not just a plan for protecting the environment and managing climate change, it is also a plan for building a cleaner and more competitive economy.

Bill C-12 proposes the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, which will force the current and future federal governments to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. In doing so, we will be binding our government and all the ones that will follow. By imposing accountability, both politically and legally, we will earn the trust of Canadians and our industries in achieving net zero within 25 years.

It was precisely to hold Canadian governments accountable for climate change that I got involved in federal politics in 2015, leaving behind a career as an environmental lawyer.

At the core of this legislation is the requirement that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change establish the initial 2030 target and an emissions reduction plan within six months of the act’s coming into force. I would be surprised if it takes that long. Both documents must be tabled in Parliament. A progress report must also be tabled by 2027. That is accountability.

The act requires the tabling and publication of targets, plans, progress reports and assessment reports. That is accountability. The legislation stipulates the content of milestone year plans, progress reports and assessment reports. That is more accountability.

It is important to note that, in the event that a target is not achieved, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, after consulting with the other ministers, will be required to include two elements in the assessment report: the reasons why Canada failed to meet the target and a description of the actions that the Government of Canada is taking or will take to address the failure to achieve the target.

In addition to the strong parliamentary accountability mechanisms mentioned earlier, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, supported by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, will have to examine and report on the Government of Canada’s implementation of the measures aimed at mitigating climate change within five years of the coming into force of this act and every five years thereafter.

For each of the baseline years 2035, 2040 and 2045, a target must be set and an emissions reduction plan established at least five years in advance of each of these baseline years. The target and the emissions reduction plan must be consistent with the purpose of the act, which requires that the establishment of national greenhouse gas reduction targets be based on the best available science, the objective of achieving net zero in Canada within 25 years and Canada’s international climate change mitigation commitments.

We are talking here about accountability. We are talking about a series of measures that would hold Canadian governments, this government and future governments, to account. We have never before had such legislation in Canada. It is high time we pass the bill. It would be good for Canada. It would bring confidence to our industries, which know the world is heading toward net zero and that their competitive advantage will be augmented by investments now in efficiency in net-zero technologies.

We would be sending, through Bill C-12, a clear signal to Canadians, first and foremost, that climate change is real, climate change is a crisis and that it deserves action right now. It deserves the accountability of all governments, this government and future governments. We are also be sending signals to industry and to the provinces about the seriousness with which we take this issue.

We will be sending a signal to the whole world that Canada will not fall victim to what Mark Carney has described as “the tragedy of the horizon”. Just because something is far off does not mean it will not hit us right between the eyes. It is already. My riding of Pontiac had massive floods in 2017 and in 2019. We are already paying the price.

The bill contains the word “must”, 27 times by my count, in association with an action by a minister or some agent of government. Canadian environmental law is replete with discretionary provisions, meaning responsible ministers can quite often make decisions as they see fit and are not imposed an obligation at all times. The bill would impose 27 “the minister must”.

That is so important and should give Canadians a great deal of confidence. It means we will not just be generating political accountability through the bill, not only will we require the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Finance come before the House and account for the targets, the plans and the progress, but we will be enabling the public, if those duties are not fulfilled by those ministers, to bring the government to court. They will have the opportunity to do so. Therefore, there would be judicial accountability and political accountability.

It is not only in our environmental self-interest, it is in our economic self-interest. Our government has absolute commitment to achieving net zero by 2050. I look forward to the day when the Conservative Party of Canada gets on board and agrees that this has to be done. I look forward to constructive contributions from members opposite in all opposition parties. We know a bill can be improved and we know there are expectations on the part of Canadians that we will collaborate to make a great bill even better, which is what will happen through the committee process.

I look forward to the discussion with my hon. colleagues.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before moving on to questions and comments, I want to repeat my instructions regarding the time allocated to each member.

Because today's motion is garnering a lot of interest, I am going to ask that members keep their interventions to no more than 45 seconds so that we can have three questions in a five-minute period.

We will now return to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree more that accountability is the key in this endeavour.

To that end, since the Prime Minister announced the promise to plant two billion trees, how many trees has his government actually planted? I would just like the number, please.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that we are governing through a pandemic and our focus right now is on dealing with pandemic matters. However, I think what he is trying to point out is that it matters to Canadians that governments follow through on their commitments, and that goes without saying. It matters also that civil society be engaged and work with government toward the objectives that are set out by the government.

I would like to point out some of the comments, for example, by Shell Canada in relation to Bill C-12. It said, “Shell’s ambition is to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050 or sooner, in step with society. We applaud the Government of Canada’s action today, and look forward to working with them and doing our part to help Canada achieve this goal.”

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

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

He and I discussed Bill C-215, my bill on climate accountability. He told me that it was not the opposition's job to introduce bills like that but the government's. However, it seems his government completely missed the boat in the case of Bill C-12, because the government is not taking its responsibilities. The bill lacks accountability and transparency. His government promised to raise the 2030 target, which is not only the Paris Agreement target but also the target set by Stephen Harper's Conservative government. Let us not forget that.

Can the member tell me the real reason why the Liberals did not enshrine the 2030 target in the act? Is it because they already know they are not going to meet it?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Let me be very clear: I have never discouraged her from introducing a bill. I think that it is important to have discussions. However, it is reasonable for a government that is serious about climate change to introduce its own bill.

The Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement, for its part, wrote that Bill C-12, “on net-zero accountability, is a significant and necessary step forward”.

The David Suzuki Foundation said that “This climate legislation could be game-changing. It promises to be a foundation for Canada’s path to meeting climate goals, domestically and internationally. Moving forward with climate accountability is exactly what the climate emergency calls for.” I could go on.

This legislation lays a solid foundation, and we will work with the Bloc Québécois to make any necessary improvements.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the “tragedy of the horizon” and said that we needed climate action now. That is ironic, given the bill would not only put off climate accountability for the next decade, but it would also put off actually creating a climate plan for six months and would give another three-month window. That is after royal assent. It would probably be up to a year before we would see a climate plan.

How does the member justify using quotes about the “tragedy of the horizon” when this is exactly what the bill is?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my learned colleague, it is disingenuous to suggest that this bill is not all about establishing a clear process, with rigid timelines, that make it very clear to Canadians that the government will have to come back to Parliament with targets, with plans and have those plans evaluated and developed with independent expertise. Canadians have been asking for that. We committed to doing this in the election and we are delivering it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member talked about certainty. Over the last half decade, the Canadian industry has had everything but that.

Implicitly, the member, time and time again throughout his speech, talked about the need for certainty, the need to have plans, targets and whatnot. However, the entire premise of his speech forgets the fact that the Liberals have been government for five years and the Canadian energy industry has suffered, which has resulted in untold job losses and a significant impact on the livelihoods of Canadians.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously disagree with the member's statement.

It is important to point out that much of Canada's business and industry is behind the net-zero target and the certainty this bill would provide. I would cite Goldy Hyder of the Business Council of Canada, “Transparency around net-zero emissions targets is essential, business leaders agree”—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We are over time at this point. We will now go to resuming debate, the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today today 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, as it is officially known. I like to call it the climate action accountability bill.

I really am very happy, because this is the kind of legislation I have been waiting for ever since I was elected, just over five years ago. This bill does not go far enough as far as accountability is concerned, as I will mention later, but it is a good first step. We could strengthen that with amendments when it goes to committee.

This bill requires that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change sets greenhouse gas emission targets at five-year intervals starting in 2030 and ending, of course, in 2050 with the goal of net zero. I will say right now that I think this is the bill's greatest flaw. Science tell us that the coming decade, from now until 2030, is the most critical time for action on climate change. Now is the time when we have to be bold. Now is the time when we have to make sure we are not just kicking this down the road any longer.

Why is there not a goal for 2025? The Liberals have been in power for five years and have been talking the talk about climate action all that time, yet we have gotten nowhere on emissions reductions. In five years, the least they could have figured out is where we should be by 2025. That is the number one criticism of the bill. We need a 2025 target.

We also need a truly independent climate accountability officer whose only job is to monitor government action and effect. The environmental commissioner has other important topics that should be dealt with and is underfunded already on that front.

The advisory body this bill calls for should have a real specific role in setting targets, and the targets should not be set based on what the government feels is achievable without rocking any boats. They should be targets based on science and what we must do.

Another reason I am happy that this bill is finally coming forward is that Jack Layton tabled a similar bill in 2006. That is right, 14 years ago. That bill actually passed through the House of Commons, thanks to the fact that we were in a minority government at the time. People often think of minority government as not accomplishing anything, but the fact is that most of the good lasting actions by Canadian governments have come during minority Parliaments. That is another reason why we should embrace proportional representation in our electoral system, as they do in New Zealand and many other countries, but I digress.

Unfortunately Jack's bill was killed by the Conservatives in the Senate, an all too common example of anti-democratic action by that unelected body. I witnessed the same fate when my private member's bill was killed in the Senate last year, along with many others, as a handful of Conservative senators sought to stop Romeo Saganash's bill on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Happily, I hear there is a movement to change Senate rules so that private members' bills cannot be summarily stopped by a few unelected senators, but I digress once again.

I ran for office five years ago because friends and colleagues told me they felt we needed more scientists in the House of Commons. It is indeed an honour and privilege to be here. When Canada went to the Paris talks in 2015, shortly after that election, I was proud of the commitments we made there. However, I was deeply disappointed the following spring when MPs were literally instructed by the Liberal government to go back to their ridings to find out what we should do to meet those Paris targets.

We knew what we had to do. We had a long list of necessary actions to decarbonize our energy systems, electrify our transportation, retrofit our buildings to become energy efficient, and on and on. We knew we had precious little time to do it. Instead, we were told to spend six months or more talking to our constituents. I did that. I held town halls on climate change. The overwhelming message at those town halls was that we have to get on to it. People wanted to know why we were asking them, because we knew what we had to do and that we should just do our job.

I will not go into the litany of past commitments and broken promises by both Liberal and Conservative governments on climate action. It is clear that even the best intentions are stifled when the going gets tough. What the Liberal government did commit to at Paris was to use the old Harper climate target of bringing emissions down to 511 megatonnes by 2030. When it made that commitment, our emissions were at 720 megatonnes. By 2018, three years later, they had risen to 729 megatonnes. We are going in the wrong direction.

The Conservatives often give the excuse that Canada should not act on climate change, because we are a small country when it comes to population and there are much bigger contributors to global emissions.

The fact is we are the worst emitter on a per capita basis, and the rest of the world notices what Canada does or does not do.

A couple of years ago, I travelled to Argentina with the then Minister of Natural Resources for a G20 meeting on energy. The topic was energy transitions toward a cleaner, more flexible and transparent system. I was impressed by the presentations from countries such as Germany, Japan, the U.K. and China. They talked about bold action over the coming decade.

The U.K. minister, in particular, had a memorable way of summarizing his country's actions. First, was “walk the walk”, meaning legislate the targets and have accountability. At last we have something like that here. Second was, “put your money where your mouth is” and make significant investments now in clean energy transition. Finally was, “have your cake and eat it too”, meaning reap the benefits of the good jobs that are created by those investments.

What did Canada say at that meeting? Our Minister of Natural Resources stood up and said that they probably heard we just bought a pipeline, and spent the rest of his time explaining why that was necessary, in some Orwellian way. One could almost hear the face-palms in the room. The only thing that kept us from being at the bottom of the heap in that G20 meeting was the fact that the Americans were there, talking about clean coal.

We found out this week, from the Canada Energy Regulator, of all places, that those pipelines, the Trans Mountain expansion, will not be necessary; nor will Keystone XL. It turns out that if we are serious about meeting our climate targets, which this legislation would signal we are, we will not need either of those projects to handle oil exports.

There are many things in this bill that I like, beyond the fact that the government is admitting that politicians are bad at keeping promises without some external body looking over their shoulder and carrying some sort of stick. The Liberals are acknowledging in print that we must limit global temperature increase to 1.5°C, and that we are almost there so we have to work fast. The bill does reference the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the first step we must take in any transition to a clean energy future.

The Prime Minister recently said of the lack of a 2025 target, “ultimately the accountability for government's actions or inactions is from Canadians themselves”. These are not the words of a climate leader. They are the words of a climate follower.

We will support this bill at second reading, but the Liberals must work with us to strengthen the accountability provisions by creating a 2025 target and a more independent commissioner dedicated to this job. Canadians expect nothing less than this, and not just Canadians. Let us remember that the world is watching and expecting Canada to do the right thing. My granddaughter in New Zealand will thank us.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's speech. He is being fairly critical of the government and the former government. One of the things that came across my mind is this: Would he level the same sort of criticism at the New Democrats in British Columbia? We have to remember the single greatest public-private investment was in LNG. That is a significant investment. It goes against everything that the member has just said. I wonder if he would state very clearly that he opposes that particular project.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not like the fracking of natural gas. There are projects that the NDP government in B.C. has moved ahead with because the projects were very far advanced, when the NDP took office three and a half years ago. I do not agree with everything that government does, but I support it, in that the New Democrats have the best climate action plan of any government on the continent and I am confident that they will lead the country in those actions.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

Every week, I see him in the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, where we study the forestry industry. In this regard, since we studied this issue in the resources standing committee, we know that the forestry industry is probably one of the best sectors for fighting climate change. Unfortunately, when it comes to natural resources, both the Liberal government and the Conservative Party are stubbornly committed to investing in the oil and gas industry.

Would my colleague agree with me that it would be an excellent start to provide better support to the forestry industry in the fight against climate change?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree forestry is well placed to help us in our battle with climate change. The fact is often pointed out that the forests are sequestering carbon. What I would like to see and what we are studying right now at committee, is to find out exactly what best practices forestry can use to make sure that we are maximizing that benefit that forests can provide. We can do all sorts of things poorly, but we want to find out what forestry can do to help us, to help the trees meet our climate targets.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I asked the question to the Liberal government outlining the need to make sure that industry, particularly our energy sector, is concerned. The member was asked about LNG. The member says he does not support fracking. It is kind of rich for the NDP to say it does not want those who are actually putting forward the capital, who are actually doing what it takes. For example, Teck Frontier had the support of first nations and it was to be a net-zero project. LNG has the capacity to displace dirty coal sources and supply British Columbians with jobs. The member's community of Penticton has WestJet service from Calgary because of the investments of oil and gas workers and people who were investing in the wineries of the South Okanagan, which are very good.

Why does the member believe that oil and gas is dirty, or its workers or managers are not fit to be on the advisory board?

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is in favour of hearing from workers in the oil and gas sector in that advisory capacity. We are more concerned about hearing from CEOs or executives of oil and gas companies because frankly the reason that we are here today is that the push-back from the oil and gas sector has delayed and delayed our actions on climate change. We will need that oil and gas for years to come, but we need to move to cleaner fuels and cleaner energy. We need people on that board who will say “this is what we have to do and must do this”, not “we cannot do this”.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

I am pleased to rise 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. As I understand the legislation, there are generally five main objectives: one, require the government to produce three specific reports, namely an emissions reductions plan, a progress report and an assessment report with respect to future emissions goals, to be tabled in Parliament; two, provide for public participation; three, establish an advisory board to reach zero emissions; four, write a fourth report on financial implications through Finance Canada; and five, write a fifth report to be tabled every five years by the environment commissioner.

I will say at the outset that I am generally in favour of more accountability and transparency and support the spirit of this legislation, but it does seem overly bureaucratic. In addition, it raises a number of red flags regarding the actions of the government as they relate to public accountability on environmental reporting and its progress to date.

In 2016, I worked as a political aide for the hon. member for Abbotsford. It was a new Parliament and there was general agreement that those on the environment committee wanted to work together for the well-being of Canada. This collaboration led to a June 2016 report entitled “Federal Sustainability for Future Generations—A Report Following an Assessment of the Federal Sustainable Development Act”. It received unanimous support.

The purpose of the report was to address the gaps in the Federal Sustainable Development Act outlined by former environment commissioner Julie Gelfand, who described the law as “a jigsaw puzzle without the benefit of the picture on the box.” The commissioner noted that the reporting required under the law gave readers a sense of progress, but “sufficient information was not included to provide a fair presentation of the progress being made”.

The committee wrote that the legislation did not meet expectations and there was general agreement by stakeholders that it lacked the enforcement necessary to improve how the government addressed environmental sustainability. The committee members recommended expanding the definition of “sustainability” in the act to include not just environmental considerations, but also thorough considerations of economic and social factors. Understanding sustainability more broadly would be instrumental in applying goals and targets that factored into all aspects of our government decision-making.

Some of the other considerations included enabling a whole-of-government approach to sustainability; assigning responsibilities to central agencies of the federal government; considering Canada's commitment to sustainable development internationally; considering short-, medium- and long-term targets; ensuring that the government respond to them; and setting additional measures for improving enforceability. The report was tabled in June 2016.

One year later, Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, was tabled by the member for Ottawa Centre. In her speech, she highlighted that the committee was instrumental in her approach to the bill. She thanked committee members and noted that this legislation would make Canada one of the greenest countries in the world, that sustainable development was at the forefront of the government's considerations, that it was about meeting the needs of future generations without compromising the present and that it would expand the definition of “sustainable development” to three core pillars: economic, social and environmental.

All in all, Bill C-57 and the original law, the Federal Sustainable Development Act, would mean a few things. The government would need to write a series of reports. There would be parliamentary oversight and regular reporting. It would set targets and strategies on sustainable development in line with these reports. There would be an expanded advisory board to improve public participation and hear from first nations. Sustainability would be a whole-of-government matter, and the environment commissioner would be required to review progress and report on whether the government was meeting its targets and doing what it said it would do.

Upon review of the 2019 report entitled “Achieving a Sustainable Future”, as required under the Federal Sustainable Development Act, the government outlined 13 main goals: effective action on climate change, greening government, clean growth, modern and resilient infrastructure, clean energy, healthy coasts and oceans, pristine lakes and rivers, sustainably managed lands and forests, healthy wildlife populations, clean water, sustainable food, connecting with nature and safe communities. All in all, this is a pretty comprehensive set of goals and targets.

We could argue that net-zero emissions cannot even be considered unless there is real and concrete action on at least 12 of the 13 existing targets in the federal sustainability report and, consequently, the act. I cannot think of many Canadians who would have a problem with the Government of Canada pursuing any of these objectives in a reasonable fashion.

However, here is the major problem. As of November 2, the Government of Canada has still not brought into force Bill C-57, which brings forward needed improvements to the government's approach on sustainability. The issues the environment committee sought to address in 2016 still exist. The environment commissioner outlined them in detail, noting the jigsaw puzzle without a picture on the box. The majority of environmentalists in our country also saw them as something wrong with the legislation.

Nothing the member for Ottawa Centre said on Bill C-57 in 2017 about creating the greenest environment has even been operationalized, and given that the minister has come before Parliament with a suite of new bureaucratic measures that would invariably duplicate existing objectives passed within Bill C-57 and are contained within the Federal Sustainable Development Act and its report, I cannot but be skeptical about this approach. Why not try to address some of the tangible things we can do to improve our environment today toward a net-zero future, as outlined in the existing and stated goals, which are already subject to Governor in Council review, thorough parliamentary oversight and consideration by the Auditor General and by extension the environment commissioner?

For example, Canada's regulatory framework under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act needs to be updated for new battery technology. What about the 13 goals, particularly clean growth and effective action on climate change? The Canadian Environmental Protection Act has not been substantially updated since its introduction by the Conservatives. We could do dozens of things there to improve product standards, help vulnerable populations and update our air quality monitoring systems.

Let us think about safe communities. We could plant a billion trees and reduce our environmental footprint. Let us think about conservation, clean water and healthy wildlife populations. We could work with like-minded countries to sign international agreements that would allow Canada to share our technological expertise. Let us think about effective action on climate change. We are still trying to operationalize those aspects of the Paris accord.

We could continue so much work on protecting habitats and, subsequently, species at risk. We could work more closely with our first nations brothers and sisters to take meaningful action to protect wild salmon and conserve the remaining spawning habitats along the Fraser River. We could even develop an economic plan to incentivize investors in strategic areas like modern agricultural techniques, systems software and satellite technology to reduce our environmental footprint. We could help companies like Carbon Engineering scale its technology in Canada.

What I see in the legislation before us is simply another example of Liberals talking a really good game yet doing next to nothing to make real progress right now. Is the government trying to make everyone laugh by requiring Finance Canada to write a report on risks and opportunities? It will not even commit to a 2021 budget. What a farce. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the government lacks accountability and is not updating our public accounts and information on how the government is spending money.

What would have been more beneficial for our country and for the Minister of Environment to consider doing would be something like the following. He should bring into force an updated Federal Sustainable Development Act, and include within it an updated strategy with five actions every year the government could take during its mandate to move toward a sustainable future so it would be subject to the review of the environment commissioner. We could give Canadians certainty about the actions being taken and the consequences of such actions in real time.

We could set a standard for excellence today both in transparency and accountability, which are sorely lacking in the government and this legislation, and finally get to work and actually do something.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for that excellent summary, especially of the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

Quite frankly, the record of the Liberal government is one of failure with respect to the environment. I harken back to a time when the Conservatives really cared about the environment. They expanded national parks and eliminated acid rain, thanks to Brian Mulroney, and did so many other things, such as shutting down coal-fired electricity generation.

The Federal Sustainable Development Act was a comprehensive piece of legislation that was modified by the current Liberal government. Does the member remember who introduced that act? What impact has it had in shaping our environment in Canada?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Sustainable Development Act was supported comprehensively by former Conservative environment minister John Baird.

To the point made earlier by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Conservatives supported the Federal Sustainable Development Act update in Bill C-57 in the last Parliament. For the member to say the Conservatives do not care about the environment and do not want the government to improve accountability on environmental reporting is completely false. He should refer back to Bill C-57, which has still not been enacted and put into force by the government.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen right-leaning Conservative governments in the U.K., Germany, Poland and Japan all working toward a just transition and moving toward clean energy. In fact, the European president has said, “The European Green Deal is not just a necessity: it will be a driver of new economic opportunities.” They have done this by taking real action to phase out high-intensity fossil fuels.

Why are the Conservatives not jumping on board? This is an opportunity for a just transition for workers. Instead, they continue to promote an agenda that will leave us with huge economic and environmental deficits.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in complete disagreement with the member's characterization of the Conservative Party of Canada.

In my speech, I outlined concrete things the Government of Canada could be doing right now. For Canada to be a leader on the environment, we need to address some of our competitive disadvantages, update the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and do things that will allow Canadians, our businesses and our private sectors to take meaningful action to improve the environment.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to a sentence my colleague said, when he wondered why we are not taking concrete action right now to improve our environment.

I was a little surprised. When it comes to the environment, the concrete action that can be taken is generally based on the fairly simple polluter-pays principle. Everyone in the environmental field agrees on that.

However, every time that there is mention of a carbon tax, the Conservative Party is always up in arms. I would therefore really like to understand what my colleague thinks is the concrete action that can be taken to support the environment.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2017, my riding suffered massive forest fires. My constituents heard about the government's plan to plant a billion trees to protect the Bonaparte River, yet it has taken zero action. They would like to see concrete actions right now. Why does the government not move on that right now? Also, the first nation forestry companies would love to have some support from the federal government to improve our watershed. That is one concrete action the government could take.

With respect to a carbon tax, let me point out that the NDP exempted the carbon tax for the investment in natural gas production in British Columbia, as did the federal Liberals. Let us be real. The carbon tax is not competitive and, when push comes to shove, they do not even apply it where they really want to see investment.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.

I am happy to discuss the bill, because it is such an important matter for this country going forward.

My first challenge with the bill is why the government needs to include words like “transparency” and “accountability” in a piece of legislation. These principles should be part of all government legislation and all government action. Unfortunately, that is the way this government sees things or demonstrates its actions. In fact, these actions are about anything but transparency or accountability.

It is important to go back to what the Paris Agreement is. The COP21, the conference of the parties to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held the carbon levels we were supposed to reach above pre-industrial levels to two degrees by the year 2050. We are doing our utmost to hit that. This requires, obviously, world action including Canada.

Planetary warming is going to happen around the world, and we need to contribute to making sure that we get everybody on the same page of reducing planetary warming. There are 7.5 billion people who live on the planet, and that would rise perceptually to 9 billion by 2050. All of these people emit carbon. All of these carbon-emitting entities depend upon carbon-based activities, including agriculture, livestock, heat and energy to fulfill their lives, which is the first tier of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

I have been in the House for just over a year. I was elected in Calgary Centre partly to give voice to some reasonable voices in the energy industry in Canada and actually show how we could move forward on this file without submerging ourselves, as a country, and making sure we move forward with common sense.

Interestingly, when we look at all the energy industries in Canada and the associations that represent them, they are all fully on board with getting to net zero by 2050. It is part of all of their advertisements and governance charters going forward. They are also the industry, people should remember, that pays the most taxes in Canada and that contributes the most to exports for a balance of payments, which is significant for this country.

Also, whenever we buy fuel, we think about what fuel means in Canada, which is getting from place to place and getting our goods from place to place, including our food and clothes. That is where 45% of the cost of the input from petroleum products goes right back into the government's pocket: what we call “economic rent.” When we compare, dollar to dollar, which energy source is more efficient, which is costing more and which is contributing more, we need to level the field. We need to understand that if we did away with oil and gas, which is what I am hearing some of the members in the House say, we would effectively be doing away with not only a very important industry to Canada, but a very important tax base to Canada. We would then have to replace that with taxation from Canadians generally, and the government would find another way to tax Canadians. However, let us look at that contribution and make sure that it is considered in this discussion.

The Liberal government continues to fail on the environment file. The Liberals have yet to come up with a plan that works, because they do not really understand energy, and I do not mean just fossil fuel energy. I mean all energy: the contributions to energy, how energy is produced and what the effects of producing energy are. There is always an effect to producing energy, even if it is in storage, whether it is hydro or uranium. There is an effect, no matter the sort of energy we get our power from.

We talked about listening to the science, yet in my short time here, I am challenged to find a member on the government bench who actually understands science. Please guide me.

At the same time, the government ignores the multitude of scientists who have provided significant input on this file. I recall the task force for resilient recovery. In the midst of a pandemic, Gerry Butts and his rent-seeking friends jammed an agenda forward. Canada was suffering a pandemic. Is this transparency? Is this accountability? Do not let a good crisis go to waste.

Gerry Butts had a lot of success. He camouflaged a $107-billion speculative program, at least, into a $49.9-billion talking point that was largely reflected in the throne speech. This is not a talking point. This is Canada's environment. This is Canada's future we are talking about. The task force said “it is time to go big”, which means playing roulette and betting Canada's future on red 36. Canadians deserve better stewards of their future.

In reading the task force report and then reading the government's throne speech, one notices that the paraphrasing in the throne speech is astounding. These reports had the same author. Who paid them? Who will pay them? Will it be the 15 advisers in this legislation? Not one of the task force members was a scientist, which is interesting. The report is littered with the moralistic right-speak of public policy experts: people who are interested in their own agenda, which is often their own financial agenda.

Perhaps we should look at the 15-member advisory board that is proposed in this legislation. A potential path forward that the government should consider, in my opinion, is for 15 advisers to be appointed to the Minister of Environment. Perhaps the government could commit to appointing 15 people who actually represent the 15 sectors that contribute to Canada's economy. There are enough public policy experts in the bowels of every government department. We do not have to hire others and get their input on what they should already have from their officials. We do not need more public policy experts. Bring in the economy's real experts: those who are contributing to Canada.

While we are talking about transparency, it is timely to discuss the regulation currently being constructed by Environment and Climate Change Canada: its so-called Clean Fuel Standard. In effect, it is a hidden carbon tax on Canada's productive industries. It is inequitably applied. The industry is waiting, once again, to see how the government may exempt them. A little influence in the government never hurt.

It is about picking winners and losers. It is not about transparency and definitely not about accountability. It is not about Canada's environment. It reminds me of the manufacturer's sale tax from years ago that had to be cancelled in the 1980s because industries left Canada. Industries still produced goods for Canadians elsewhere, but jobs and taxes left Canada. Everything left Canada, and it is what we now call carbon leakage because there was the same production and Canadians still bought the same goods that were produced elsewhere. This is an example we do not want to repeat.

There is a lot that has to happen in the energy industry. There is a lot that we need to make sure gets better, and we need to continue to reduce carbon. I am hopeful this bill gets us part of the way there. I am hopeful the government will start taking this file seriously.

To this point, all I have heard is partisan shouting out of that side and blaming past governments for what they did not do. It is the Liberals' turn to step forward and move this file forward. We are trying to work with them.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of putting partisanship aside and in the interests of science, the IPCC said the world needs to get to net zero by 2050, and 45% below 2010 levels by 2030.

Does the member agree with the IPCC's science?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the IPCC has its own scientific explanations. We have to look at what that means. Every party I know has committed to going forward with meeting net zero and getting toward it as quickly as possible. If it happens by 2049 or 2051, moving in that direction is exactly what we need to continue to do.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

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

However, I find it rather odd to hear him say that oil is good because when people go to the grocery store, they send money to the government. Based on available figures, the federal government has invested $70 billion in fossil fuels over the last 40 years, including $19 billion in the last four years, and $2 billion this spring.

Sooner or later, we are going to have to transition away from oil. Even in Quebec, the Legault government just passed legislation to prohibit the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035. Does my colleague agree that, if we want to curb greenhouse gases, sooner or later we will have to transition away from fossil fuels? If so, what date does he propose?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that many jurisdictions around the world are moving toward banning the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2030, 2040 or 2050. That is part of the transition we talk about.

The other part of that transition looks at the actual environmental benefit of what is replacing internal combustion engines. People have to look at the full cycle cost, and the full cycle CO2 cost, of replacing internal combustion engines. Eventually, we have to get to the actual math, which is part of the science, that asks why we are shifting but our CO2 footprint is actually increasing.

I am going to challenge the member who asked the question to look at the actual consumer rebate of $13,000 in Quebec, once the subsidies are removed, for an electric vehicle. What does that mean to the public, but what does it also mean to the environment to have a whole bunch of inefficient electric vehicles being produced, along with their batteries, and along with the pollution effects from those industries? That is the challenge we have, going forward.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the world's top scientists are telling us that we must dramatically reduce our emissions by 2030 if we want to avoid the worst consequences of severe climate change. The IPCC has been very clear that we need to stabilize global temperature to 1.5° if we want to avoid the catastrophic issue that is facing us. We need to go beyond Stephen Harper's targets. Right now, the government has a milestone target of 2030. That means the next progress report will not be until 2028.

I am hoping my colleague agrees with me, that we need to listen to science and we need to set a much stronger target than 2030.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue around 2030 and, actually, 2040 and 2050, is that they are interesting dates. Let us recognize that each one of these targets is politically set: 1.5° is a political number, 2° is a political number and 2030 is a nice, round political number. Is it going to be worse from now until 2025 than it will be from 2025 until 2030? All of these are dancing on the head of a pin, as far as what is worse and what the measures are.

The whole point is to start getting to better solutions. That means more efficient energy for this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. friend from Calgary Centre, I think it is terribly important to disagree as forcefully as possible with the notion that 1.5° is a political target, as 1.5° has emerged from the intense work of thousands of scientists globally in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was commissioned by governments to find out exactly what the difference is, in terms of impacts, between a 1.5° global average temperature increase and a 2° increase. Both of those figures are embedded in the Paris Agreement. They are critical to ensure human civilization survives. That is not hyperbole. That is science. The member for Beaches—East York had it just right. If we do not achieve 45% reductions globally by 2030, we cannot have a prayer of reaching net zero.

I ask my hon. colleague for Calgary Centre to reconsider what he calls science and what he calls politics.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the member misunderstood my statement. The number arrived at is 1.5°C, but if we get to 1.49°C, I am saying that is actually better. This is not a line in the sand. That is my point to the member. I hope she takes it in the spirit it was intended. The number 2°C was decided on in the 1992 accord as what we needed to get to, and we needed to make sure in 2015 that we had methods for getting there.

In all good spirits, I am certain the member did not mean to misinterpret my remarks to say it was political or non-scientific. They are numbers that people can attach themselves to. If we get to 2.01°C versus 2°C, or we go to 1.98°C or to 1.49°C versus 1.5°C, I think we are still talking about those numbers. They are not lines in the sand. I appreciate the member correcting me on the misuse of the phrase.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the virtual House today to participate in this extremely important debate on Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act.

Before I get into my remarks today, I would like to notify you that I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Beaches—East York, who will make a speech after me.

As I said, it is my pleasure to participate in this important debate. It is a topic that is extremely important. It has been important to me throughout my entire life. It is something my constituents care about and remind me of all of the time and this legislation as proposed provides an accountability framework. It certainly does not provide the content of a plan for moving forward. It really defines a framework for accountability and that is a positive step forward.

Canada and countries around the world are facing unprecedented economic, environmental and social challenges, which are all occurring at the same time. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant loss and uncertainty in Canada. Almost half of households lost work at the peak of the pandemic, impacting the ability of families to pay rent and put food on the table.

Responding to the pandemic and ensuring that Canadians can move forward into a recovery phase that ensures there are good jobs and a solid plan for a strong, resilient, competitive and sustainable economy matters more than ever. We need a road map for the future, one that takes into account our current reality but also where we want the world to be in 10, 20 and 30 years from now.

What we know is that the world is changing. Countries are responding to the fallout from the pandemic, but many are doing so in a way that takes into account the equally urgent crisis of climate change. In some respects, the current public health crisis pales in comparison to the larger and impending crisis that will see the effects of human activity, which has harmed our natural world for generations, leading to the alteration of weather patterns, mass extinctions, the loss of biodiversity and even the collapse of ecosystems, which ultimately threatens the habitability of our planet.

The science is very clear that we face a catastrophic future if we do not dramatically alter the amount of pollution we are putting into the atmosphere. I learned recently of a remarkable independent film called The Magnitude of all Things, and that film masterfully depicts a phenomena called climate grief, which is the loss we are all feeling from the destruction of our home.

The science is clear that we need to bend the curve on GHG emissions now and achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050. Countries around the world are responding to this imperative and they are also moving to take advantage of the clean growth opportunities that will come with it. Those are significant and Canada has enormous advantages, ranging from our vast natural resources to our skilled population, our commitment to research, our innovation and our entrepreneurial spirit. We need to seize the opportunity now. We need to do our part to demonstrate our commitment to the rest of the world.

From forest fires and floods to melting permafrost and coastal erosion, Canadians are experiencing the impacts of climate change every single day. Our climate is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world. In the north, warming is nearly three times as fast. The effects of warming are already evident in many parts of Canada and are projected to intensify in the near future. We can see this with wilder weather and seasons and lots of flooding. There is much evidence of these weather patterns changing.

In December 2015, at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Canada played a leadership role in reaching a historic agreement to address climate change. Canada was also one of the first countries to ratify the Paris Agreement and help push it over the threshold to bring it into force in October 2016.

Through the Paris Agreement, we committed to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature increase to well below 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. Following the adoption of the Paris Agreement, Canada developed the first climate change plan in our history to include joint and individual commitments by federal-provincial-territorial governments and to have been developed with input from indigenous peoples, businesses, non-governmental organizations and Canadians from across the country.

The pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change was adopted in December of 2016, and this was a huge step forward. In fact, one of the reasons I got into politics in the last federal election was that great work. The pan-Canadian framework outlines over 15 concrete measures to reduce carbon pollution, help us adapt and become more resilient to the impacts of a changing climate, spur clean-technology solutions and create good jobs that contribute to a stronger economy.

Between 2005 and 2019 the federal government invested $60 billion to drive down greenhouse gas emissions, generate clean technologies, help Canadians and communities to adapt to the changing climate, and protect the environment. Carbon pollution pricing systems are in place in all provinces and territories, and we have introduced regulations to reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas sector and to improve emissions standards for light- and heavy-duty vehicles.

As we work to phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030, we have worked with communities and workers affected by the transition to a low-carbon economy. We are developing net-zero energy-ready building codes to be adopted by 2030 for new buildings, and we have adopted a climate lens to ensure that future climate impacts are considered and addressed in federally funded infrastructure projects. To ensure Canadians have access to climate science and information, we established the Canadian Centre for Climate Services.

Our plan is working. Our most recent projections show a widespread decline in projected emissions across the economy. The policies and measures now in place, including those introduced in 2019, are projected to reduce emissions by 227 million tonnes by 2030. However, we know that a great deal of work remains to be done. The 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change also invited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to prepare a special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. I have that report here, and I have been reviewing it.

In 2018, the special report on “Global Warming of 1.5°C” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that global emissions must reach carbon neutrality by around 2050 to limit warming to 1.5°C. There are clear benefits to limiting global temperature increases to that level. The IPCC's report made it clear that, to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, an aggressive and long-term commitment to action is needed. Every bit of warming matters, and this is why it is urgent to take action now. Increasing ambition is what science tells us is needed to address climate change, and it is built into the Paris Agreement.

We are currently working on strengthening existing and introducing new greenhouse gas emission reduction measures, which will allow us to exceed our current 2030 target. On top of that, we know that we need to look to the longer term, which is why we committed to enshrining, in legislation, the government's goal to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Along with this system of five-year targets, emissions reduction plans, progress reports and assessment reports are key enabling components of our work to achieve a net-zero emissions economy by 2050.

Our government has committed to implement a number of new measures to help us reach these ambitious targets, while creating a million new jobs and growing the economy. This includes a commitment to plant two billion trees to help sequester carbon, retrofitting 1.5 million homes to improve energy efficiency and save Canadians money on their energy bills, making it easier for Canadians to purchase and drive zero-emission vehicles, and supporting northern, remote and indigenous communities as they transition from diesel to renewable energy systems.

These measures and more, which the government plans to announce soon, will help put Canada on a path to a strong zero-emissions economy, one that is inclusive for all Canadians.

I am going to stop there. I had a few more remarks, but I understand that my time is limited. I will stop there, but I am thankful for this opportunity.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Liberals claim that this bill offers more transparency and accountability when his government has not been transparent whatsoever on the costs of their carbon tax and whom, ultimately, that costs? The member for Carleton calls it the “carbon tax cover-up”.

Would the member be open to seeing amendments at committee stage toward ensuring that socio-economic and fiscal impacts as a part of any action plan should be included so consumers know exactly who is paying the bill, in what part of the region and in what sectors?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always find the hon. member's questions helpful in clarifying where the government stands. This framework for accountability does provide numerous points in time, such as monitoring, an advisory board or advisory function. There are reporting requirements. Many aspects of the legislation provide a container for accountability on our plans, targets and reporting on progress. We can continue to evaluate our progress toward defined targets. We really need this to ensure that any governments that come into power are bound to climate targets and take this crisis seriously.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that a lot of what the member for Whitby said in his speech was music to my ears. He is obviously aware of all the damage that global warming is doing to the environment and human health.

However, since he talked about two billion trees, if we overlook the fact that that none of them have been planted yet, those trees would reduce greenhouse gases by 30 megatonnes by 2030, while the Trans Mountain project with its barrels of oil would increase greenhouse gases by 620 megatonnes by 2030. I get the impression that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question comes up often in some of the debates on this topic. I understand that this is a challenging issue that requires a full-court press from all stakeholders at all levels of government. It requires us to transition entire industries and move toward essentially all of us changing the way we live, purchase, govern and do business. Every part of our existence is going to have to change for us to fully address and get to net-zero—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this debate and discussion is so vitally important. Where I am feeling somewhat cynical is that I was elected 16 years ago when Stéphane Dion brought in his bill that would have clear targets and Canada would meet them. He even names his little dog, Kyoto, after the program. Year in and year out the emissions continued to rise, and emissions are predicted to continue to rise in the oil and gas sector.

The Prime Minister is pushing Joe Biden to move on the Keystone XL pipeline, while the Liberals put $12.6 billion into Trans Mountain. How can they expect Canadians to take them seriously, that they actually will get to net zero, when they continue to subsidize the industry to such a massive extent?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share my hon. colleague's concerns.

The way I look at it is we are attacking this problem from many different angles at the same time. It is not as simple as saying we can cut off support immediately just as, to the same degree, we cannot phase out single-use plastics overnight. There are times, transition, stages and phases of this work. We have to be respectful of workers in the oil and gas industry and those industries just as much as we need to support all other aspects of this problem that need to be addressed.

Our government has stepped up and provided a really holistic plan with some very ambitious targets. I think the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We are going to take one more question and response.

The hon. member for Fredericton.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, for the record, I agree that this should not be a partisan issue. I do not want to feel like a little green mosquito, just trying to pick away at this. I want the government to succeed. I want to be excited by climate legislation.

However, with all due respect, this is not it for me. The member talked about the catastrophic changes we are facing and the grief that we are feeling because of this. Is 10 years before we start looking at actual accountability an adequate response to this?

I think about the youth who are constantly contacting my office and the ways they are feeling about this. They are looking to the government to be bold and to provide really concrete actions today.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in no way do I think the hon. member is a green mosquito. I honestly feel like she is a partner on an issue about which we all feel passionately. I really value her perspective.

It is a point well taken. I have heard from numerous other members that they are looking for a target to be set for 2025. Bills in the House only get stronger through debate. I value that perspective and I see your point. Hopefully as we move forward, as the points are debated, we will move to improve the bill even more.

I am quite excited about it. It is a step forward, for sure, but I understand your concerns.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would just remind hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair. Using the third person works very well for the House, as members know.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we live through these difficult times and face the COVID crisis, we have to direct our energies to the crisis in front of us. However, we cannot forget about the climate crisis that looms large. We have to bring that same sense of effort and determination to address it.

When thinking about addressing that crisis, I look at it through three lenses: ambition, accountability and action.

The bill before us, Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, is about accountability but also about ambition. I want to start with what is very good in the legislation on ambition, which is the commitment to net zero by 2050.

In the last Parliament, I was lucky to join two other colleagues from the Green Party and the NDP to call for a climate emergency debate in the wake of the IPCC report on 1.5°C. I introduced a bill on net zero by 2050 in the House. I was very happy to see that in our platform and the throne speech. Now it is realized as a commitment in this legislation.

In the purpose clause, the legislation says the purpose is “to promote transparency and accountability...in support of achieving net-zero emissions in Canada by 2050”. Importantly, in the preamble, the IPCC is explicitly cited. The IPCC concluded, “achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is key to keeping the rise in the global-mean temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and minimizing climate-change related risks.”

Of course, 2050 is a long time away, so we need to turn that long-term ambition into short-term practical action and we do so in the course of the legislation by way of five-year milestone targets. That is important. We talked about carbon budgets in our platform. It is important for everyone in the House to support the bill going to committee. When it gets to committee, I am certainly interested in hearing from experts about the difference between the carbon budget process and the milestone process that our government has proposed. It is very important that we not just talk about net zero by 2050, but look at shorter-term milestones and targets as well. That is an important ambition.

When it comes to accountability, it is important to highlight a series of positive measures in the legislation.

We first see progress reporting, a requirement of one progress report per milestone at least two years before the milestone. We see a requirement to table assessment reports and an important requirement for the government to table an emissions reduction plan in Parliament to tell the public how we will meet these shorter-term targets and get to net zero by 2050.

We also see a requirement for an expert advisory body that is to not only advise the minister but report annually to the minister and the minister must respond in a public fashion. These are important accountability mechanisms. We see a requirement for annual reports from the finance minister on how the government is taking key measures to manage financial climate risks.

Last, we see a requirement for an independent environmental commissioner tasked with examining and reporting on our progress and holding us to account if we fail to meet the necessary progress.

I started with the positives, but let me speak to some of the challenges. Before I get to the challenges, when I speak of accountability ambition and action, this is not an action plan. For anyone looking at this plan, saying we are speaking about the importance of climate change and asking where the action is, this is not the action plan. We have seen significant action over the last five years, and I can get into the details of that. We have seen projected 2030 emissions between 2016 and 2019 go down 25% because of the policies we put in place, but this is fundamentally about accountability and brings with it a commitment to greater ambition.

It also kicks the can down the road too far. I mentioned turning that longer-term ambition into short-term action. While this is a very strong framework for accountability, there is a significant “but”. That is because this act, as structured, provides the first milestone target as 2030. What this means is that the first progress report would not be required until no later than December 31, 2027.

Clearly, we need a more urgent and credible reporting timeline to meet the act's goal of transparency and accountability. There are a few ways of answering this challenge, in my view. A number of environmental organizations and colleagues have proposed that we move up the first milestone from 2030 to 2025. This would mean that an initial progress report would be required by the end of 2022, and there is some sense in this. Very smart environmental advocates have called for this solution to address the challenge that I have described.

There is another way of addressing this challenge, though. When we look at science-based ambition, we have a 2050 target in this bill, a net-zero, science-based target from the IPCC, and we could have a science-based 2030 target in this bill as well.

What does a science-based 2030 target mean? We talk about net zero by 2050, but the IPCC also tells us that, on that pathway to one and a half degrees, the world needs to be 45% below 2010 levels by 2030. What does that mean in a Canadian context? In 2010, our emissions were 691 megatonnes, and 45% below that is 380. That should be our minimum target.

If we look to the Paris Agreement and the fact we are a highly developed country, we might argue credibly that we actually ought to go further. At a minimum, on the science, the target for 2030 should be 380 megatonnes. If we establish that target in a science-based and serious way, then in the course of this act, we could provide for earlier progress reports.

I would certainly be comfortable with a strong science-based 2030 target. If we do not have a 2025 target, but a strong science-based 2030 target, I would certainly be comfortable with earlier progress reports in 2030, 2025, 2027. With those, this would be a very strong bill.

I have heard from other advocates that we could strengthen the advisory body's role in setting targets and in progress reporting. We could better ensure its independence. I have seen suggestions to require the minister to consider expert advice when setting targets. There are reasonable questions about capacity issues in the environmental commissioner's office to do this serious work.

This is the framework we are looking to. In the U.K., as an example, the climate change committee that was established through legislation in 2008 has great resources. We need to ensure any independent body standing up to do the accountability job has the necessary resources to do that job effectively.

As I mentioned previously, the difference between milestone targets and carbon budgets has also been raised with me. All these considerations will rightly be addressed by experts at committee, and I sincerely hope we see proposals from all parties and constructive work at the environment committee to improve this bill. It is a strong framework but it absolutely does need to be improved.

To close, I just want to emphasize that accountability and ambition are important, but at all times we must be guided by science. Our ambition must be set by science and this accountability act should be as robust as possible. Then of course everything depends upon serious climate action.

I know there are questions about impacts on the economy. This bill, in the preamble, recognizes the importance for the economy to move toward a clean transition, but this is really about jobs as much as it is about climate action for our kids.

We have made significant progress since 2015, so let us, united across party lines, build on that progress. Let us bring, as I say, the same determination and scale of response to the climate crisis that we have brought to the COVID crisis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was initially concerned my friend's speech would contain unqualified praise for the government, but he stayed on brand and offered some criticisms. I appreciate that.

One of the frustrations for me in our debates about climate change is that we spend relatively so much more time talking about targets than about the action that will allow us to move toward those targets. We had a big discussion about which targets are appropriate for what year, but we also have to make decisions based on immediate actions and trade-offs.

He alluded to some of that, but I would like to ask him specific questions in that context. What does he think about supporting the deployment of greater nuclear technology? What does he think about supporting carbon capture and storage within the energy sector? Also, what does he think about doing more to support the development and export of natural gas as an alternative to the continuing use of coal in other countries around the world in conditions that are not up to the level even of coal use here in Canada?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, speaking from Ontario, there is absolutely a continued role for nuclear, but new investments in nuclear, looking at the math, do not seem particularly cost effective.

When it comes to carbon capture and storage, every plan I have seen includes it, but there is no sense of the science behind what that means and how we actually realize it. At the moment, there is no credible plan for carbon capture and storage at scale to get us to where we need to get.

In answer to my friend on the question about action versus ambition, of course we need both. I mentioned we have had significant action over the last five years and that we need more of it, but we also need the right level of ambition. The machinery of government moves slowly and it moves toward an end goal. If we do not get the goal right, then all of that work will have been for not.

As a baseball player for much of my life, if I am told it is a five-inning game or a nine-inning game, I manage my bullpen differently, so let us get the innings right.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I was a teacher, I often saw students who had problems and knew the solutions, but could not solve their problems because they did not know how to go about implementing the solution.

This bill is a step in the right direction, but is does not identify how the objectives will be achieved.

Is there a concrete, down-to-earth action plan to go with this bill?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is not an action plan, nor should it be construed as one. When we talk about ambition, accountability and action, this is an accountability bill that sets out important ambitions that will require the government to act, but it should not be construed as an action plan.

I mentioned the U.K. We know that since it established its Climate Change Act 2008, which stood up an accountability framework, it has moved much more quickly than we have. Accountability matters.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems from the member's words that he cares deeply about addressing the climate crisis, so it is confusing to me that he would stand behind a bill that puts off accountability for 10 years.

What is also confusing is that the member said this is not a climate action plan. Where is the government's climate action plan? This bill gives the government an additional nine months after royal assent to create that plan, yet in its throne speech it said it would table a climate action plan to exceed 2030 targets immediately.

In what definition of “immediately” does it take a year to get this kind of action plan? How does the member stand behind the Liberal government and its inaction?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a frustrating question in some respects in that it suggests there has been no action. The actual numbers in the report from Environment Canada show that in early 2016, projected 2030 emissions were 815 megatonnes. If we fast-forward to early 2019, that same report is showing it at 592 megatonnes. It is absolutely not where we need to get, but for the first time in my lifetime we have a government that has acted in a serious way on the most important issue of our time.

To suggest that we need to stand where we are and do no more is wrong, but to suggest there has been inaction is equally wrong. Yes, we need to do more. I mentioned we need to improve this bill, but of course I stand behind it at second reading. I am asking for it to be improved at committee.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems quite enthusiastic. He talks about the government's commitments and actions.

There is a group in Quebec called Mothers Step In. These are mothers and grandmothers who are very worried about climate change and rightly so. They even have a manifesto calling on the federal government to adopt a coherent plan to help meet targets and enshrine them in the bill on climate.

The government has good targets, but if it is so certain it will achieve them then why not include them in the bill as this group is asking for?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a target in the bill. It is net zero by 2050. As I articulated in my response, I think we should have the big numbers we see from the IPCC of 2030 and 2050 as the timelines, and then five-year commitments in the interim. Having a science-based 2030 target established in this legislation is absolutely something I would support.

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.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleagues from all sides of the House for giving me this opportunity to speak today. While I do plan to stick around a little while longer, the uncertainties that we are facing as a nation and, indeed, within the House mean that this could be the last chance I have to physically stand in the House to say farewell.

I must also warn members that I plan to be uncharacteristically non-partisan in my remarks today because, quite frankly, it is not about the politics here; it is about the people.

Whenever I am asked what it is like to be an MP, I always reply one thing: It is the most challenging, demanding, frustrating, worthwhile thing that I have ever done. There have been a lot of times over the last 16 years where there were ups and downs. I have lost a lot. I lost my husband, my father, my vision temporarily, my appendix and my dear neurotic cat. However, I also gained more than I ever could have imagined: amazing experiences across Canada that only deepened my love for this great country, friendships that will last a lifetime, an undying respect for this institution and for those who serve in it, and a pair of titanium hips.

For some, becoming an MP is not something they always plan to do. Sometimes, it is the issues of the day that really push someone to serve. While the issues and events in 2004 were definitely the tipping point for me, my desire to help those in my community started many years earlier. When I was about nine years old, my mother sat me down on the eve of an election to tell me what democracy was, how important it is and how very lucky we are to have it. I remember that conversation vividly, and I can say that, from then on, I dreamed of having the opportunity to fight for the people at home.

Therefore, to everyone in Haldimand—Norfolk, I cannot thank them enough for making the dreams of that little nine-year-old girl come true.

I have to say it has been a heck of a ride since 2004. From being named agriculture critic during the BSE crisis, serving in former prime minister Stephen Harper's cabinet for all 10 years, to being named the Conservative caucus party liaison and a member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, every position has come with its own challenges and memories that I treasure.

Some of those include creating the universal child care benefit, promoting and delivering the tobacco transition support program, imposing measures to protect potential human-trafficking victims here in Canada, stickhandling numerous infrastructure projects for Haldimand and Norfolk counties through the bureaucracy, breaking down barriers faced by persons with disabilities, and finally, retiring and replacing the aging Sea King helicopter fleet with the new Cyclones.

Through it all, I have truly been blessed to have amazing people by my side, people who have challenged me to do my best, who have stuck with me through the high times and the low, and who even laugh at my sometimes warped sense of humour, and on a daily basis. While I may have been labelled the toughest bird in cabinet at one point, I am a firm believer that if a person cannot laugh at themselves, they are just not funny enough.

From the very beginning, my parents were my biggest champions. During many elections, my dad would knock on doors with me, and my mom was always working in the campaign office. Thankfully, I still have my mother today. I know Mom will be watching this; I thank her and I love her.

Of course, I also could not have done any of this without my late husband, Senator Doug Finley.

Many people knew Doug as the man who always had a plan F, who was a staunch defender of free speech, who led the Conservative Party to victory in 2006 and 2008 as the national campaign director, and who played a leading role in the 2011 election that resulted in a strong, stable, national Conservative majority government. He was also one of my biggest supporters, both professionally and personally. As far as we can tell, we were the first married couple to sit in both Houses of the Canadian Parliament at the same time.

I would like to thank those in my life who have made it possible for me to still be here today. In no particular order, I thank Marlene and Tom Stackhouse, Sharlene, George Santos, Howard Goode, Wally and Jan Butts, Jeremy and Chelsea McIntee, Frank Parker, Karly Wittet, The Amazing Ali, and the Johns in my life: Nieuwenhuis, Wehrstein, Bracken and Weissenberger.

To those who made my life easier every day, Denis, Jojo, Ann, Jimmy, Mike Fraser, Michou and the indomitable Lynette, they have my heartfelt thanks.

To my former cabinet colleagues, Gerry, Rob, Lisa, Bev and Carol, and to Senator Plett, Ian and Vida, Karen Kinsley, Aly Q., Koolsie, Spiro and Dustin, I am so grateful we are still in touch.

To my former deputy ministers, Dick, Ian and Janice, I thank them for their patience and wisdom.

To my favourite former prime minister, I thank him for the trust he kept placing in me, and placing and placing and placing.

To my current colleagues, Karen, Raquel and John N., it is a great relief to know that they are taking on my pet projects going forward.

Of course, I would not be here today if it were not for the thousands of volunteers and donors over the years who generously supported me and my efforts. I thank them.

To my Conservative family, it has been an absolute pleasure getting to know all of them and working hard with them to help Canadians. It is the values that have kept me blue through and through, the values of hard work, showing respect for other people, looking after one's family, smaller government and lower taxes. That is why I am so excited for the future of the Conservative Party under our new leader and for what my colleagues will continue to do for Canadians.

Most importantly, to the residents of Haldimand—Norfolk, I thank them from the bottom of my heart. I know I am not at all biased when I say that Haldimand—Norfolk truly is the best place to grow up and live. As part of Ontario’s south coast, yes, Canada’s fourth coast, we have some of the most hard-working, friendly, salt of the earth people, people who know what it means to pull up their socks to get a job done or to help a neighbour. It has been an absolute privilege to be the MP for these amazing people.

It is time for me to turn a new page. It is time to hit the refresh button. It will soon be time for me to indulge my creative side; to travel, hopefully; to take some courses; and to finally get to my “want to do” list. I am looking forward to this new chapter of my life and what it will bring.

To all those young people out there who have a dream like I had, I urge them to go after it, chase it, pursue it, live it. It might not be easy, but I assure them it is worth it.

I would like to close today with a quote from the hero of that little nine-year-old girl I used to be, Winnie-the-Pooh, who said, “How lucky I am to have something that makes saying goodbye so hard.”

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, this time is normally for questions and comments. I will only comment in this case.

What an honour it is for me, on behalf of my colleagues and on behalf of the Conservative caucus, present and past, to thank the hon. member of Parliament for Haldimand—Norfolk for her tremendous public service and her touching remarks today, which cap her incredible service not just to Haldimand—Norfolk, but to all of Canada.

What an honour it is for me to be a colleague of and to pay tribute to someone I have admired for a great time. As a party activist, as many of us volunteer and take part in politics, I watched her incredible work helping merge the parties. The hon. member was, by half an hour only, I have learned, the second candidate nominated for the newly created modern Conservative Party of Canada.

With her background, not only professionally, with an MBA from Western, but also being bilingual and running a French immersion program for a time and working in the private sector, it was known that, with the hard work of merging the parties and preparing the government in waiting at the time, she would be an important, literally a critical part, of a Conservative government. This was after more than 15 years of Conservatives being in the wilderness, politically, in Canada.

What an incredible record this hon. member had as minister of citizenship and immigration, minister of human resources and skills development, and minister of public works and government services. I am glad she mentioned, after a generation, she gave the RCAF a new Maritime helicopter. I love her even more because of that.

I was a young cadet when that program was cancelled. It had languished and hung out there, and then a strong minister, who always had the service of our men and women and their best interests at heart, finally got that major procurement done and bought the Cyclone. I have been able to fly it. It is a testament to her service to our country and our interests around the world.

She is the last of the titans, the last member of Parliament in our caucus who has served as a member of the government and a member of cabinet at senior levels for every single year in the period of the Harper government. That corporate memory, that knowledge is something I do not want to lose, and I am in awe of her tremendous contribution to our country.

Her presence on our team is thoughtful, connecting our caucus to our grassroots, and always making people feel welcome. The Christmas lights in her Parliament Hill office often showed how welcoming she is to new people, and her mentoring of many of young members, especially some of our women joining a political career, who are able to look up to someone who had had tremendous success and learn from that.

Then, of course, there is the great love story of the upper and lower houses of Parliament in Canada, which includes a meeting at Rolls-Royce in the private sector. I love that part of it, too.

Doug was in the private sector at Rolls-Royce. They met, and obviously shared a love for Parliament. Then, I, too, think they are the only, or at least the first, husband and wife to serve at the same time in the upper and lower chambers of this great Parliament, and at senior levels, I might add, throughout that period.

That is a legacy. We lost our friend, Senator Doug Finley, but they created a legacy together in the scholarship fund for young people. Once a year, even virtually, the event brings people together to celebrate public service, which we saw today can often be fractious. We need to celebrate and instill that in young people.

The good people of Haldimand—Norfolk have been well served. Her advocacy, to the point of bragging about that region of Ontario being the bread basket and the greenhouse of our province and our country, is something that all MPs should strive to do as champions for their community. When she informed me of her news, she said, right up to the last day, she is going to be working with people in her riding on grassroots petitions and on issues until her last moment.

That exemplifies the type of service the member has given. When we look at the book of wisdom that she is handing on to the next generation, many of them here in the chamber with us, that is a legacy of service that will last for many years.

I am very happy that she has already provided much of that wisdom, introduction and mentoring to Leslyn Lewis, who we hope will join our team from Haldiman—Norfolk, showing that the continuity of public service, of Conservative ideals and principles, will be the hallmark of the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk's career, from the first moment she was elected through to the last day she will spend as an MP.

I will end on this note: As the last of the titans, as someone who was in cabinet and had to defend a Conservative government, often in front of a somewhat hostile press gallery, the member's motto was “brave in difficulties”. At least that is one of the member's mottos, and she wore it with pride and vigour.

She was not only brave, she was noble and resolute throughout challenging times, the great recession and the transformation of government. It is a legacy I think all Canadians of all political stripes can be thankful for. I ask all colleagues to show tribute to the member today for her public service.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is a tremendous privilege to rise today in the House and speak on behalf of the Liberal caucus and this side of the House. If I may begin by saying that, for the last 16 years, this House has been more thoughtful, richer, more compassionate and more competent because of the member for Haldimand—Norfolk's presence here. It has also been a bit more feisty and fun.

I want to really express the gratitude we have on this side of the House for her collegiality and sense of engagement. Whether she was on this side of the House or that side of the House, one knew they could depend on that member to be fair, to be thorough and to always stand up for what is best in this country.

Six elections are no small feat. If we call a 20% or 25% margin a squeaker, she has had some pretty rough rides. It has been fascinating to watch both her parliamentary career, as well as her government career, and we are richer in Canada because of her time in those people departments, especially. Of course, Public Works and Government Services was important, but the member shone as a minister for people, whether it was at Human Resources and Skills Development, or Citizenship and Immigration. It was in these kinds of places where people's lives changed because of her care and compassion. It was noted.

Sometimes I hated being on that side of the House watching her on this side of the House exercising that care with such grace, competence and love. That really has been an important part of what we need to do in this place and to remember her.

The actions she has made have really made the people of Haldimand—Norfolk know that they were well represented in this place. It is all about bigness in that riding, from the Grand River on one side to Big Creek on the other side and to Long Point on the fourth coast. In Simcoe, Delhi or Port Dover, the people knew they were well represented.

Just this last February the member, whom I want to call by name but I am not going to, for Haldimand—Norfolk called about two of her constituents from Port Dover. They were on the Diamond Princess and needed help getting home. She knew all the details, and showed all the care. It was such a moment of good constituency care.

As a minister, as a member, as a human being and as a sister in this place, we can only wish her the very best of luck and best wishes as she undertakes this next chapter of her life. I am interested to know what she is going to do with it. I have already told her privately a number of goals I thought she should have.

To the little Girl Guide in Port Dover, who became, through an MBA, a successful business person, and on to be a passionate parliamentarian, competent minister and gracious human being, Godspeed, best wishes and much love.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am also pleased to recognize the work and accomplishments of the member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

She has been a member of the House since June 2004. Today, I understand her decision to leave us. She has served the public, served others, for over 16 years. She can be proud of what she has accomplished. If I were her, I would be proud too.

I met my colleague in 2006, when I was the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry and she was a minister. As members have said, she has held a number of cabinet positions. What stands out about her to me is her kindness. She was the kind of minister who was not intimidating at all, so opposition members were not too shy to cross the floor of the House to talk to her about specific files. She was always friendly and attentive to all members who had things they wanted to ask her about.

Today, she gave her speech mostly in English, but I know that Diane, if you will allow me to call her by her name, Madam Speaker, also speaks French and made every effort to do so. Every time I went over to talk to her, she made an effort to listen to me and answer me in my own language, both orally and in writing.

The public does not know that we exchange notes, that is, messages that the pages deliver to ministers. Every time that I, or any of my Bloc colleagues, sent her a written message about a specific matter, she always made sure to answer in French and, above all, to follow up the next day during question period. That is an admirable quality. She was an approachable, empathetic minister. She devoted herself to serving the people we represent. Being a government minister means being the minister of all citizens. She certainly took that to heart.

I also knew her during the period when she sat just over there and her eyes were hurting. She mentioned this in her speech. She stayed on, sitting there. Someone else might have gone on sick leave, but this MP and minister stayed on to carry out her duties while fighting an illness that I am happy to say she overcame.

I know that she never held a grudge against me for the time, right after I was elected in January 2006, when I showed up unannounced at her office with piles of shirts from textile workers. I had organized a big rally for textile workers, and Paul Crête and I went to her office to give her five or six garbage bags full of workers' shirts. She thought it was pretty strange that a young MP would come barging into her office like that to deliver shirts. However, she never held it against me, quite the contrary, in fact. As someone said before, she has a great sense of humour.

It means a lot to me that the person in the Chair today is a woman, because we welcomed two new female MPs yesterday, which enabled us to reach the magic number of 100 women in the House, out of 338 MPs. It is a magic number. I am sad to see Diane leaving us, because now the number could drop back to 99. I apologize, Madam Speaker. That said, I understand that she needs to take care of herself, her family and her children and take some time to just enjoy life, because it must be said that serving others and being an MP and minister for so long takes up a lot of time.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I hope the next chapter of her life is filled with fun, love and success, and I hope she gets a chance to live life to the fullest.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise and pay tribute to the member for Haldimand—Norfolk. We are both from the class of 2004. That was six elections ago. Anyone who can hold a riding through six elections, through the ups and downs, shows an extraordinary commitment not just to Parliament, but to their constituents. That is something the member always showed: her dedication to where she came from.

I was thinking back to 2004. In some ways, it seems like such a long time ago. Some things have changed, and some things seem to be similar. In 2004, my hair was dark brown. I notice that the member's hair has not changed at all, so that is extraordinary. I am very, very impressed.

In 2004, the EU was all over the media because it was welcoming new members, not because people were leaving.

We had a pandemic in 2004, but it was the bird flu. I do not even remember what bird flu was. It sounds a lot less threatening than COVID-19, but we survived that.

Also, in 2004, the member and I came in as newbies to Parliament, where the Liberal government was announcing that finally, for the first time, we would have strong, firm commitments on environmental targets and we would meet those targets, so plus ça change: We are back at it.

There was another element, though, in 2004, and that was the BSE crisis. Both the member and I were opposition critics for agriculture, and I remember that crisis. It was an all-hands-on-deck moment. The beef industry and so many families were in such crisis and the member showed a real dedication then. Of course, she went on to government and I did not, but that is all water under the bridge. Somebody will write a biography about what happened to the New Democratic Party someday, but it will not be me.

In that time, I dealt with her on a number of big files because she was the minister of human resources and skills development; she was minister of public works and government services; she had CMHC, I think, and she had citizenship and immigration. Those are all files that really touch people's lives, and they were not necessarily easy files to handle at the time.

I have to say that the member was a pretty tough opponent. She talks about how nice people are from Haldimand—Norfolk. They do not strike me as tough, but if someone were to get too close into the boards with her, they would get knocked. She would hold her turf. Then I learned that she was from the Hammer. She was born in Hamilton, so now I understand it. I want to pay tribute to the Hamilton side of her because in times of toughness it showed.

One thing also really struck me. When we live our lives in politics in the public eye, our privacy disappears very quickly. The member survived real personal tragedy. She survived difficult health conditions and she came in time and time again, showing incredible dignity and determination. She held her seat and she held her files through all those difficulties. That was an extremely admirable thing to witness as a colleague.

I want to thank her for her service because, at the end of the day, public life should be an honourable profession. It should be something that we aspire to. She aspired to it, she said, as a little girl. I think that is really, really powerful. I remember as a little boy hearing my grandparents argue about politics: about Stanfield, Joe Clark, Ed Broadbent, David Lewis and Pierre Trudeau. The respect that generation had for political leaders of all stripes was really impressive. I worry, in the rising world of toxic politics and the blame game, that we are losing that old-school sense of the dignity of the office, the dignity of the person who comes forward to represent her people. The member always carried her office with incredible dignity. She never reached down. She never used cheap shots. She always presented the facts as she saw them. Sometimes those facts were pretty blunt, but she said them as they had to be said. Also, she went to bat when things needed to be fought for.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I want to thank the member for her service to Parliament, to her party, to her constituents and to our nation. I wish her the best. I am not sure, but I am told there is life after Parliament and it is a very great life. I am sure she is going to prove that for us, so I will continue to follow her to see how she charts a new course of life. Thanks very much on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

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

Madam Speaker, what an honour it is for me to be able to add a few words for my dear friend from Haldimand—Norfolk. I am wondering if she knows something that none of the rest of us knows. Her decision that it would be maybe the last time that she could stand in her place to say goodbye makes me wonder what she knows about COVID. What does she know about an election? Maybe it is just better to be safe than sorry, but I really hope this is not the last time she is standing in her place in the House.

I want to add my voice to those of so many friends who say the obvious, which is that the member for Haldimand—Norfolk is an extraordinary human being. She exhibits real kindness. When I was newly elected in 2011 as an opposition MP and she was a powerful minister, there was never any question that I brought forward that was treated as a partisan matter. It was treated in the spirit in which it was raised, as something important for constituents, something important to answer openly and honestly. She was never one, in question period, to duck or to take a partisan shot when a member asked her something about her portfolio.

Somehow over the years we got to be friends. I want to say publicly, and to the hon. member, she may not know how much I admire her, but I think of how she has overcome things that are heartbreaking, such as losing Doug and various health challenges. She really knows how to tough it out, do her job and constantly show a measure of compassion and kindness to the others around her.

I have memories of the all-party support for measures she took to help people who are visually impaired to access all of our parliamentary documents. We had fun with that one, did we not? I want to say from the bottom of my heart, I hope we do see each other again and not before a great long time passes. I hope we are able, post-COVID, to raise a glass and celebrate an extraordinary career. I thank the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk. I thank her for such kindness. I thank her for her friendship. I thank her for an extraordinary career of public service, and God bless her.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, it does not very often happen that I am at a loss for words as you well know, because you get to hear me mumble here all the time.

From the bottom of my heart, I thank all of the members and speakers today. They have been most generous. I am not sure where the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands got this thing about how I never took partisan shots. Maybe she is mixing me up with someone else.

As I said in my remarks, the most gratifying, worthwhile thing I have ever had the opportunity to do has been to share the lives of my constituents and their concerns with so many members who always stepped up to the plate to help. We have had some challenges, and we still do in the riding. Whenever I was having a tough go, every time I could turn to someone, including my colleague from the Liberals who spoke. Right at the beginning of COVID, I remember the Diamond cruise ship was there, and we were working with a couple who were from my home town. The member was such a treat to work with, and his office made sure they took good care of us to do everything we could to help that couple get home safely and soundly.

That is the kind of spirit that we have had here. When push comes to shove, yes we bicker back and forth. Part of that is showtime, right? Then afterwards we meet out back and ask someone if they heard the latest joke, so it is not personal. It is professional. I am going to miss the friendship and fellowship that I have enjoyed here. I am going to miss that and miss members. I am going to miss the fun. I am going to miss the fights, but I am looking forward to the next chapter.

I thank everyone for the kind words. I am overwhelmed by it. Be well. Be well.

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

All the best.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, it feels funny taking the floor after such an emotional moment.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

Bill C-12 talks about an action plan. That is the term used. To us, an action plan means measures, tasks, activities, deadlines and the assignment of responsibility in order to carry out a project. Given the importance of the issue it addresses, although we agree with the principle, we feel Bill C-12 needs some work. Members can count on the Bloc Québécois to propose improvements.

We are on the cusp of the fifth anniversary of the Paris Agreement on December 12, and we are discussing Bill C-12. I just had to point out the coincidental numbering that makes me laugh.

Canada can no longer say that it is preparing for a transition. The transition should have started a long time ago, long before the pandemic brought all the world's economies to their knees, long before capitalism was forcibly subdued by the cessation of all commercial activity, long before people finally realized how essential the people, mainly women, who work in health care and education are.

Today we can no longer call it a transition. We need to call it a leap, as Naomi Klein would say. This bill must be able to evolve in order to play the role it should be designed to fill, namely a permanent tool that includes all of the necessary accountability mechanisms in order to guide this government and future governments toward a new economy and a future that all generations can look to with hope.

Bill C-12 appears to have gloss over one element that is central to the democratic process, and that is the sacred principle of the separation of the legislative and executive branches. This issue crops up in several clauses.

First, in clause 20, there is no independent assessment. The minister will be assessing his own government's work. The bill mentions an advisory body. Why not? It is a good idea, except that we soon realize that it will not be playing the role we would expect. The members, who are appointed by the minister, do not have a mandate to advise on short-term goals or interim targets. Their mandate is simply to provide advice with respect to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

The advisory body needs to be independent so it can make recommendations and be heard. As the people who drafted Bill C-12 say, notwithstanding the terminology used at the press conference, an advisory body is not an independent authority.

In our opinion, it is crucial that a real advisory body be set up. It must be made up of independent experts with the powers, abilities and resources to conduct detailed analyses, advise the government on its targets and plans, collaborate on follow-ups and monitor progress.

The other issue is that nothing is binding. There are no consequences for not achieving the targets. If the minister thinks things are not going well, Bill C-12 gives him free rein to change the previously established targets. According to the bill, “The Governor in Council may make regulations for the purposes of this Act, including regulations...amending or specifying the methodology to be used to report”. The targets will be changed and the methodology will stay the same, and Canada will once again present itself as a leader in the fight against climate change.

I would like to talk about clause 24 and the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. Bill C-12 recommends that the commissioner examine the implementation of the measures aimed at mitigating climate change at least once every five years. I would like to remind the House that the recommendations made by the experts in the commissioner's office are not binding, so the wording seems a little wishy-washy to us.

Currently, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is playing the role he is meant to play, and the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development know what I am talking about. What I mean is that his office deserves respect. He should be commended for the invaluable work he is capable of doing. He should be given powers commensurate with the gravity of the offences, the gravity of the shortfalls and the inaction that his team has noted in many of its investigations.

These experts' recommendations are too often ignored by the government departments and agencies in question. That is why his role needs to be strengthened.

The current state of affairs is nothing less than a hindrance to the application of corrective measures and adjustments to the government's actions on climate, pollution and environmental protection.

Once amended, this bill will be crucial for the future. It is therefore important to genuinely involve the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development by giving him powers that will ensure that follow-up is done properly and that independent experts can contribute to the goals.

The Bloc Québécois has nothing against economic prosperity. I am digressing a little, but I am saying this because many members said in their speeches that the most polluting resource is our hope for future prosperity.

In our opinion, all we have to do is not open the door to lobbyists for a while and instead learn about the current movement. This is not just the Bloc Québécois talking. Big investors unequivocally stated in the New York Times this summer that climate change is the greatest systemic threat to the economy.

It is not a trivial matter when investment companies start taking $1 trillion in assets out of companies associated with fossil fuels. The leader of the Bloc Québécois mentioned the possibility of taking the more than $12 billion sunk into Trans Mountain and redirecting it to industry in Alberta, because we think that a green shift can mean prosperity for all.

It would be sad if we were to choose, willingly or under some influence, to spend public funds to enrich private companies, like oil and gas companies, which are often foreign owned, to the detriment of the renewable energy sources of the future and innovative projects like the ones under way in Quebec.

Right now, the government is subsidizing polluting industries that are making us sick. Quebec and the provinces then have to use health care funding to heal their residents. Incidentally, we still have not seen an increase in health transfers.

In another vein, why does the government not work with indigenous communities on clean energy infrastructure projects? On November 13, it said that it was going to extend funding for indigenous participation by investing in oil and gas, not in clean energy.

I have a bit of time left, but not enough to quickly list all the measures, practices, subsidies, policies and allocations that are literally undermining the progress we could be making together.

Is there anyone here, whether physically or virtually, who does not believe what the science is telling us about climate change? Is there anyone here who does not see the crystal clear link between the environment and human health? I am reaching out to all members, especially my fellow members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, who are concerned by this worrisome situation. Let us not be divided on this issue.

Bill C-215, tabled by the Bloc Québécois, contains the elements needed to produce solid legislation. The legislation needs to be tangible, with clear accountability and targets.

Canada is now touting multiculturalism and the importance of multilateralism, so it should quickly rectify the embarrassing lack of reference to the Paris Agreement. I say “embarrassing” because the Paris Agreement was signed five years ago. This will force Canada to set a target under that agreement for 2030, which should be included in the bill.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

I am in complete agreement with her. The transition should have started a long time ago. We did start it, but that was followed by 10 years of inaction under the Conservatives.

She is right to say that this bill is not an action plan. It is a framework bill. We presented the first component of the action plan in 2016. It was the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, which all of the provinces and territories adopted. The minister also announced that this plan will be updated very soon.

I would like to address two points raised by my colleague. She believes the advisory body is insufficient. However, before entering politics, I co-chaired an advisory council on climate change for this government. The council proposed a series of measures, including purchase incentives for electric vehicles and investments in energy efficiency retrofits. A few months after our report was released, those measures were incorporated into the 2019 budget.

The hon. member also said that there is no external evaluation, yet there is an entire section on the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. This is right in his wheelhouse, since he is responsible for making sure that the government meets its objectives in various areas. Consequently, I am having a bit of difficulty understanding my colleague's questions in this respect.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with some of the things my colleague said. An act is not an action plan, but it needs a binding reduction target. That is the whole purpose of a climate act.

The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development told the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development that the situation is dismal. In 2011, the Department of Transport received a damning report on the safety of hazardous materials. Two years later, in 2013, a train exploded in Lac-Mégantic. It is now 2020, and nothing has been done. The commissioner needs more powers so he can force government departments to follow up on his audits.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, the member's own party has a bill, I believe it is Bill C-215, that seeks many of the same things as this bill. Why is the Bloc supporting the Liberal bill over their own member's bill?

Second, it seems strange to me that, in a bill that Liberals like to trumpet as, somehow, being an accountability and transparency bill, there is very little transparency or accountability for the government. In fact, the initial target at 2030 will be the first opportunity. That is more than two majority governments away from today.

I would like to hear her thoughts on both of those themes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. He sits with me on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

We obviously support Bill C-215, and we tabled it before Bill C-12. Our bill contains targets, including interim targets, as well as measures for achieving them, and it ensures transparency with respect to the method of calculating greenhouse gas emissions. These are all proposals that we will make to ensure that Bill C-12 becomes a real climate act.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which showed that you cannot build strength if you do not walk the talk.

Does the member think that the infamous Paris conference was the benchmark for this bill? What is the point of signing that damn document if, at the end of the day, nothing even happens?

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

I remind the member to watch his language.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

The Paris Agreement was signed on December 12, 2015. All of the countries were required to review their targets after five years. The targets agreed to in 2015 will allow the planet's temperature to rise by 3° or 4° by the end of the century. We were not supposed to pass 1.5°.

Obviously, the countries had to review their targets. With every passing minute that we fail to properly react to the climate crisis, it becomes even more difficult to achieve the Paris targets. That is why I am saying that we do not need a transition. We need to leap. We need to move more quickly.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the government's new bill, Bill C-12, on achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Fortunately, this is a subject that brings people together more than it divides them.

When it come to climate change, most people agree that we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions if we, and especially future generations, do not want to hit a wall. We all agree that it is our moral obligation to leave behind a planet that is still habitable for future generations.

Since climate change is an issue that affects everyone, it has brought together many people who would normally not work together. We all have one thing in common, the earth, and we know that there is no planet B. That is what brought about half a million people together to march in the streets of Montreal on September 27, 2019. That is what motivated a large number of women who did not have much in common aside from the fact that they are mothers, to come together and form Mothers Step In, a group that I had the pleasure of meeting with on Monday.

The goal of reducing greenhouse gas production has even gained widespread acceptance among big oil companies like Shell, which announced a program called “drive carbon neutral” two weeks ago. In short, reducing greenhouse gases is such a worthy goal that it is not surprising that there is such a consensus. However, here is the problem: Too often, when we talk about greenhouse gas reduction and net-zero goals, that is all it is—a goal. As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry once said, a goal without a plan is just a wish.

Let's be clear: We are not against Bill C-12, far from it. Every step in the right direction is welcome. However, we do regret that this bill takes only baby steps and that time is running out. The climate emergency is very real and is a major concern among Canadians. Although Bill C-12 was intended to be resolutely green, we regret that it is actually a little too dangerously beige.

When it comes time to demonstrate political realism, people like to quote Montesquieu, who said that perfect is the enemy of the good. However, climate change is an exception to that quote. We do not have the luxury to be good. We have to be impeccable. We have a duty to succeed. To use the classic expression, we are doomed to nothing short of excellence if we do not want to be doomed at all.

Bill C-12 has good intentions. On the eve of election 2019, the Liberal Party said in their platform that they would “set legally-binding, five-year milestones, based on the advice of the experts and consultations with Canadians, to reach net-zero emissions”. The Liberal Party also said it would “appoint a group of scientists, economists, and experts to recommend the best path to get to net-zero”. Then comes Bill C-12: gone are the binding targets, gone are the follow-up and rigorous evaluation by an independent body.

If between the promise and the bill the commitments have diminished, there is genuine concern that the measures that should result from enforcing the law will also diminish if they are not adequately entrenched in the bill in advance. That is why it is important to point out the flaws of Bill C-12, and I am going to speak about at least four of them.

First, Bill C-12 does not include targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions. The only constraint found in the bill is that the government is required to set new targets every five years. The government can move ahead haphazardly and change its game plan as it goes and as it sees fit. That is concerning because we have seen in the past that this way of doing things does not work.

From the beginning of its mandate, the government has set greenhouse gas reduction targets, but has never managed to meet them. The development of a plan requires anticipating from the beginning the steps required to carry it out. Moreover, to ensure that the plan works, the government must include benchmarks that cannot continually be lowered.

Second, Bill C-12 is essentially a commitment from the government to assess its own performance. This is also not very promising and it shows that the government does not take this seriously. Pursuant to clause 16 of the bill, the minister himself will write a report detailing the reasons why Canada failed to meet its targets, if applicable, and the actions Canada will take to address this failure. I remember, way back when, we used to correct our own or a peer's schoolwork. We were usually asked to give ourselves or our friends a grade. I do not recall anyone ever failing an assignment under this system. It may be a worthwhile exercise for developing skills to critique one's own work, but it would be a very inappropriate way to grade a final exam before graduation, for example.

I am glad to see that Bill C-12 requires that the reports on the targets, regardless of whether they are met, be tabled in Parliament and made public. This transparency is not inherently bad, but without an independent authority to assess the progress, we can unfortunately expect to see some self-congratulatory grandstanding.

Third, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, most people are of a same mind on climate. Quebeckers and many Canadians agree on the notion of an emergency. Everyone knows that tomorrow is already too late and that even today is almost too late

In recent months, governments, cities and universities in Quebec and Canada have declared a climate emergency. This is not the time to procrastinate. As the saying goes, never leave for tomorrow what you can do today. If we agree on the definition of the term “emergency”, then we must take concrete action very quickly to avoid the serious consequences of climate change. For that reason the government must require that the state respect its own commitments. The law should include a mechanism that will make the government accountable as well as a reporting mechanism.

Fourth, the Liberals unfortunately seem to want to always postpone their targets. Not so long ago, in the throne speech, the government said it was going to introduce a plan that would help Canada exceed its climate targets for 2030. Promises were being made for 2030, but the problem is that 2050 is all they are talking about now.

They promised to raise the target for 2030, but this is not even enshrined in their climate bill. As they say, those who can do more can also do less. If the government is so confident it can achieve net zero by 2050, it should be just as confident it can achieve one of the milestones needed to reach that final goal, namely reducing emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. Therefore, it should not shy away from enshrining this objective in Bill C-12.

The environment no longer has the luxury of waiting for the government to show its goodwill and fight global warming. It is with this sense of urgency in mind that the Bloc Québécois has introduced a bill on climate accountability. We need legislation that will pave the way towards achieving the objectives that will let us face future generations without feelings of shame or failure. This plan must not be open to change at the whim of the current or future governments.

That element of accountability and predictability is the very purpose of Bill C-215, which was introduced by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. I would like to go over the highlights. First, it will integrate Canada's Paris Agreement commitments into domestic law to make them mandatory. It will require the federal government to raise its greenhouse gas reduction targets to the same level as the Paris targets. It will also require Ottawa to lay out a detailed action plan to achieve its targets. It will task the environment commissioner with determining whether the government's efforts will enable it to achieve its targets and with telling the government how to achieve them. Lastly, it will hold the federal government to account in the House if it fails to keep its promises.

Despite its shortcomings, we will support Bill C-12 because we do not want future Canadians to be disappointed in us or to feel that we failed them. We hope the federal government will support our bill in return.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

We are both concerned about climate change, which has been my pet cause for many years. I attended the first UN Conference of the Parties in 1995. All I am missing is a cane.

I am a little confused. I will quickly read out a few excerpts from the bill, including part of the preamble:

...the Government of Canada is committed to achieving and exceeding the target for 2030 set out in its nationally determined contribution communicated in accordance with the Paris Agreement....

It also mentions the commissioner of the environment in subclause 24(2), which I will read out:

The [commissioner's] report may include recommendations related to improving the effectiveness of the Government of Canada's implementation of the measures with respect to climate change mitigation that it has committed to undertake....

If I understood what my colleague said, she would like to force future governments to meet targets. In a democracy, I do not see how we can force a government that has been duly elected by the people to not change its mind. As an environmentalist, I want all governments to meet the targets, and I believe that we have a collective responsibility to ensure that that happens.

However, how can we enact a law that forces something on people who have a perfectly legitimate democratic right to change their minds?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what we are hoping for, that this bill will be binding for future governments.

If they decide to amend the bill, they will be the ones to blame. The plan that is presented can be changed at the government's discretion. The commissioner of the environment can make recommendations. What we want is for the commissioner to tell the government whether the targets that will be included in the bill are realistic. That is exactly what we are asking for, and that is what is missing from Bill C-12 right now.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent speech. We all have the same objective, which is to save our planet.

I would like my colleague to talk about the current situation. The government opposite has been in office for five years. I remember that when Parliament was shut down during the first Parliament, when I was the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, we were already talking about the climate emergency.

Today, we are discussing Bill C-12. There is also the Bloc Québécois's Bill C-215. The government is putting things off.

I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks about this inaction. Urgent action is needed. We need to act. Nothing concrete is being done to save our planet.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, past inaction is making it increasingly difficult to reach our targets.

That is why these targets need to be enshrined in legislation and set in advance so we can have a plan for achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

If we fail to do this, we run the risk of making the same mistakes and missing our targets because they were not enshrined in law. Once the targets are enshrined in law, successive governments that want to get around them will bear the odious responsibility of having amended the legislation to do so.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what the hon. member thinks about the U.K. carbon budget law, because it binds all governments when they come into power.

The U.K. used to produce 25% more emissions than Canada, and now it produces 45% less emissions. The U.K. reduced emissions by 42% over 1990 levels, while Canadian emissions have increased by 21%. What does the hon. member think of having a binding law like what the U.K. carbon budget law does, so that we can meet our targets?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for his question.

I do not claim to be an expert on environmental matters. What I do know, however, is that some measures have been proposed, such as Bill C-215, that will allow us to set and achieve realistic targets that will be validated by the commissioner of the environment.

For instance, the commissioner of the environment could recommend various types of legally binding carbon exchanges. This is one thing that could be achieved through the bills we hope will pass.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the House from my home in Canada's mining capital to talk about a bill that is so important to the future of our region and our economy.

As the member for Sudbury and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, I get to work with all kinds of incredible people in our resource sector. I have heard about the hard days they have gone through and the long hours they work, not just to put food on the table but to benefit all Canadians. I am very proud of the work they are doing in the community and across the country.

I have never heard a worker tell me they were worried about the environment. I wanted to mention that because, in the course of my work with Natural Resources Canada, I have also heard one myth in particular over and over again.

There is a myth that a resource-rich country like Canada cannot be a leader in the fight against climate change, that industries such as mining, forestry and energy hold us back, that they stand in the way of reaching our goal of net-zero emissions, that trying to achieve net zero will kill our industries.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, these are the very industries leading the way. They are investing in innovation and developing new technologies to cut emissions, producing the raw materials for this clean-growth century, and proving to the world that the environment and the economy can indeed go hand in hand, all while creating good, middle-class jobs and advancing indigenous reconciliation.

The mining sector, for example—

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

Order.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a very quick point of order, I believe the member was going to share his time with the member for Guelph.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Yes, Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member of Parliament for Guelph.

As I was saying, the mining sector produces the minerals and metals essential to clean technologies. Our forests are the most sustainably managed in the world and provide the foundation of the emerging bio-economy. Our oil and gas sectors are on their way to placing among the lowest-emitting producers in the world, and major players like Cenovus have committed to achieving net-zero emissions in their operations. They understand that achieving net zero is not a regulatory burden, but an economic necessity at a time when our government is making historic investments in renewables such as wind, solar, tidal and geothermal energies.

Natural Resources Canada is supporting all these efforts, with over 900 clean technology projects across the country. In total, we are investing nearly $1 billion in Canadian clean-tech innovations. The total value of these projects is in fact more than four times that of private sector investments.

Climate change is real. It is an existential threat to our planet, our homes and our way of life. It is a moment that calls for action. The only question is how? How do we continue to meet our needs, power our cities, heat our homes and grow our economy while producing fewer emissions. In particular, with C-12, how do we enure we are pushing forward all the time toward reading our goal of net zero emissions.

Right now, our electricity grid is currently 82% non-emitting. We need to get that to 100% and then rapidly expand the clean supply as we electrify our economy. We do that by promoting transmission connections like the Atlantic loop; continuing to invest in renewables like solar, wind, geothermal and storage; supporting the development of new energy sources; and helping remote communities move off diesel.

We also understand the need to improve the energy efficiency of our homes and offices, factories, schools and hospitals. That means building an inclusive retrofit economy that hires thousands of Canadians across the country, creating a made-in-Canada low-carbon building supply chain and implementing net zero building codes for new homes.

Finally, we are also investing in emerging areas of energy production. Let me take a few minutes to talk about just one: hydrogen.

Global production in hydrogen is expected to increase at least tenfold in the coming decades, accounting for close to a quarter of all the energy used around the world by 2050, and creating an industry valued at as much as $11.7 trillion. Canada can and must capture its share. We are ideally positioned to do so. In fact, name any country where hydrogen is being developed and deployed in a significant way, and the odds are that Canadian technology is at the centre of it. The opportunities are as diverse as the country itself.

In Alberta and Saskatchewan, we can capitalize on our natural gas sectors to produce clean hydrogen with the help of world-leading carbon capture used in storage technologies, lowering the emissions of every ounce of oil we produce. In Newfoundland and Labrador, we can leverage the extra electricity we produce alongside wind and other renewables for clean hydrogen production.

British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec will be able to use waste diversion for increased renewable natural gas production and leverage low-cost hydro power for large-scale clean hydrogen production.

Hydrogen and other low-carbon fuels also offer opportunities to reduce diesel dependency in Canada's north, giving largely indigenous remote and northern communities access to clean energy.

To capture the full range of hydrogen's potential, we are finalizing a national hydrogen strategy, a strategy that will serve as a catalyst for investments and strategic partnerships and make us a top three producer of hydrogen. That is just one example of the incredible opportunities out there.

We could talk about geothermal, tidal, biomass heating, SMRs, but I only have 10 minutes. Therefore, I will leave it at this.

Net zero is an economic opportunity for new jobs with new technologies and energy sources. The market is changing. Investors are making clear choices and putting their money into jurisdictions taking action on climate change. Canadian industry understands the direction markets are moving in and that our industries are following the money. They are already skating to where the puck is going.

Canada as a whole needs to get to net zero. To do that, we need a method for reporting and transparency, so we can achieve a net-zero economy by 2050, a national economy that continues to grow and a clean energy future that leaves no one behind. Canada's natural resources will be central to all of it.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up where the member finished and talk about two things, transparency and accountability.

Let us start with transparency. The Liberal government would not share with the people's representatives when we asked for information about the carbon tax. In fact, the member for Carleton called it the “carbon tax cover-up”. The government would not tell us the cost of the carbon tax to the average consumer. It would not tell us about how much it would cost to a wholesaler, etc.

The Liberal government has been completely opaque, despite its promises of transparency.

Second, on accountability, this bill makes a government two full Parliaments, four and a half years-plus from now, accountable for what the Liberal government will do. Could the member explain how this has anything to do with transparency and accountability?

Furthermore, the member talked about the importance of industry and how it would get onside. Why will the Liberals not say that they will ensure our Canadian energy sector will have representation on the advisory council?

I would like to hear the member speak to those three items.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the points the member raised was the price on pollution. In my role as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, I get to represent Canada among other countries around the world, and we are the envy. They look at Canada and cannot believe that the Canadian government was able to put this forward. A lot of my my Green friends also gave us kudos for putting it in and starting this process, which is so key for us in reaching our goals.

The fact is that at every point, the Conservatives tried to stop us. They basically tried to stop any coherent and proper plan to move on the environment and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It is quite clear that, as we move forward with this plan, certainly with the framework of net zero, we know that a price on pollution is key to all of this as well as many other investments that we need to—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, we completely agree with the goals, but there needs to be action and a plan to go with them.

There is still a lot of direct and indirect support for fossil fuels, but I would like to look at something more specific. Greenhouse gas emissions expressed in megatonnes are higher today than they were in 1990 despite years of effort and years of talking about the environment.

When we signed the Kyoto protocol in 2002, the baseline year was 1990. Then Canada withdrew from the protocol. In 2015, the new government set a new greenhouse gas emissions reduction target, but used 2005 as the baseline year. Then it started bragging about a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, even though it moved the goalposts.

What is this if not statistical manipulation by every government and every party combined?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is precisely why are proposing this plan and introducing Bill C-12.

This is about framing the discussion. The member said the government needs a plan. The first part of the plan was of course the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change introduced in 2016.

Now it is a matter of providing a framework for the regulations to be followed. When we achieve—

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

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing that really concerns me about the legislation is that we keep seeing the government push things further down the pike. When I think about the national housing strategy, we had a government put forward a plan that said the housing strategy would be delivered within the next 10 years, focusing on a housing crisis in 10 years. The housing crisis is not 10 years away; it is right now. When we look at the environment, it is the same thing.

The environmental crisis is right now. Why does the government persist in not addressing it today?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, we are addressing it today with Bill C-12. We put a price on pollution. We are investing heavily in green transit across the country. We have made a lot of progress in our first mandate, but we know we need to continue.

One of the issues, quite frankly, is that the technology needs to be created as well as we go down this road. We need to work with industry and all stakeholders to make this happen. This will not just happen tomorrow, because the technology does not exist to get to net zero tomorrow. We are working toward that.

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

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 Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Health; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs.

The hon. member for Guelph.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the time I have been allowed to speak on the floor today. I also thank the member for Sudbury. I remember visiting his riding a few years ago. We were going to SNOLAB to look at innovations in the mining sector. I sat lakeside with him, talking about climate change and his passion for the environment, so I feel that conversation has moved into the House of Commons. I wish I was up in Sudbury at the lake with him right now having the conversation that way, but it is also great to be here today speaking on the record and having an opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, from my riding here in Guelph.

I would like to start first by recognizing that Guelph is situated on the ancestral homelands of the Anishinabe people, specifically the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

Climate change is a key issue for many Guelphites. It goes across party lines. Today, I have seen members of the environment committee, where we have these discussions, all agreeing something needs to be done in the crisis we are facing right now. The legislation in front of us takes us to 2030 in a 10-year increment, then goes beyond to 2050 in a 30-year increment to ensure we hit the proper points on the graph now and in the future.

When we are looking at things to help get us to those targets and how we will achieve those targets together, some of the technologies do not exist yet, as the member for Sudbury said. Some of them are accelerating faster than legislation is keeping pace with, such as the move toward electronic vehicles. My constituents in Guelph are really excited to see the banning of single-use plastics, the commitment to plant two billion trees and the work we are doing to conserve our natural spaces. That being said, Guelphites are also challenging me and reminding me that better is always possible.

This legislation gives us some key reference points as we go forward to see how we are doing in the future to see if we are meeting our goals to net zero by 2050. I am proud the government is acknowledging that Canadians want to be bold on climate action now. The government has to continue to deliver on this call to action and act in direct response to it. I have heard from younger constituents, I have held climate change town halls with high school students, I have worked with people at the University of Guelph who are researching, and everyone wants to see action. This legislation is a way of tracking the progress of the actions we are undertaking.

Back in December 2015, I can remember being a new member of Parliament and being so proud of Canada signing, along with 194 other countries, the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement included the goal of limiting a global average temperature rise to well below 2°C to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C over pre-industrial levels.

According to the 2018 special report “Global Warming of 1.5ºC” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global emissions must reach carbon neutrality by 2050 in order to limit global warming to the 1.5°C goal identified in the Paris Agreement. Reaching carbon neutrality means achieving a state where human-induced carbon emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are balanced by the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Achieving net zero will require a careful calibration to reflect Canada's unique circumstances, including geography, the importance of the traditional resource economy, shared jurisdiction on the environment, and the natural and technical solutions we will bring forward to hit that balance.

The Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act does just that. It would help us meet our emissions reduction targets, grow the economy and build resilience to a changing climate. It would also enshrine in legislation Canada’s commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, which is also a goal of Guelph's city council. To help achieve this goal, emissions reduction targets would be set at five-year intervals for the years 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045 on a rolling basis, and we have targets going to 2030 to hit our Paris agreements as well that would need to be tabled within six months of this legislation before us today coming into effect.

When we set the target for each of these milestone years, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change must consider the long-term objective of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. In addition, the minister must take into account the best scientific information available, Canada’s international commitments with respect to climate change and submissions from interested persons from across the country, including young people in Canada, technical experts and others who want to be part of the conversation. These targets would be set at least five years before the beginning of the next related milestone year, with the exception of 2030, which would be set within nine months after Bill C-12 reaches royal assent.

Bill C-12 would also require the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to develop emissions reduction plans that would outline how the Government of Canada intends to take action to achieve the targets for each of the milestone years and 2050. These plans would contain the relevant greenhouse gas emissions target, a description of the key emissions reduction measures intended to achieve that target, a description of relevant sectoral strategies and a development of emissions reduction strategies for the federal government operations. The plan would also include an explanation of how each of these elements would contribute to Canada achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

To ensure transparency and accountability reflecting the full range of relevant circumstances, these plans would be created in consultation with other federal ministers who have duties or functions relating to the measures that are being taken to achieve the target.

In terms of accountability, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act would require the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to prepare two types of reports: progress reports and assessment reports. Progress reports would be used to provide interim updates on Canada’s progress toward achieving the target for the next milestone year. They would contain updates on the progress that has been made toward achieving the relevant target and on the implementation status of federal measures, sectoral strategies and federal government operations strategies outlined in the emissions reduction plan.

Assessment reports are the other type of reports, and they would be used to reflect on the last target, the actions of the government, and whether or not Canada has achieved this target. Assessment reports would contain a summary of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions inventory for the relevant year and a statement on whether Canada achieved its target for that year. They would also assess how the federal government measures relevant sectoral strategies and the federal government operations emissions reduction strategies described in the relevant emissions reduction plan contributing to Canada’s efforts to achieve the target for that year.

I will also add that this would be audited by the office of the Auditor General of Canada through the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.

Finally, the assessment reports would include any information relating to adjustments that could be made to subsequent emissions reduction plans in order to increase the probability of meeting subsequent national greenhouse gas emissions targets and any other information the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change considers appropriate. Assessment reports would be prepared no later than 30 days after the day on which Canada submits its greenhouse gas emissions inventory report to the United Nations FCCC for every milestone year or to 2050.

What if we miss the target? The accountability of this piece is that if Canada were to fall behind on meeting the targets for the milestone year of 2050, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change at that time would include in the assessment report an explanation of why Canada did not meet the target and a description of any actions the Government of Canada would take to address the target further. That is typical of what we see from reports coming from our Auditor General. This would ensure the transparency and accountability of the government’s action for all Canadians, as assessment reports would be made public after they had been tabled with either the House of Senate or both the Senate and the House of Commons. On that note, all original and amended targets, emissions reduction plans as well as progress reports and assessment reports would be tabled in both Houses of Parliament, as I said.

Following the tabling of any target of any of these documents in either House of Parliament, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change must make them available to the public as soon as possible to ensure transparency toward Canadian—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I must say, I feel like I am watching an episode of Yes Minister with that display of bureaucratic doublespeak, hoop jumping and targets. Let me see if I can get this straight. Nine months after this bill receives royal assent, the government is going to establish targets for 2030.

[An hon. member]

Six months.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Sorry, six months after, but it will be set for 2030. Nine years later and then every five years after that they will be set. Today, that is like sitting down and saying we have a budget deficit and we are going to start to balance it in 2030. Forget about the next nine years of work, we will just look far down and try and come up with magical numbers that might look good today. The government could do much to help the environment by simply not cutting down all these trees it will use for all these reports.

What is the purpose of having targets nine years after this bill receives royal assent?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate some parts of the humour the hon. member presented to us. When we look at the targets to 2030 and the targets to 2050, within six to nine months we need to know how we are progressing toward 2030 and then review those targets again within five years to see that we are progressing toward the end result of getting to net zero by 2050.

It is very important to have those interim reports. It is not bureaucracy or doublespeak. It is a good business practice to know whether we are on track within the timelines we are outlining in this bill.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is the climate emergency, but I would say it is more like a pathetic emergency. This bill is missing important pieces of the puzzle.

First, there are no greenhouse gas reduction targets. The government will set its own targets every five years. It already does this, but it is not working. What will it take for the government to change its method?

Second, the government will assess its own performance. It will be giving itself its own gold stars. It will give itself an A+ and say that everything is fine, and then carry on as though there were no emergency. This is a joke. It is not a plan. It takes mechanisms to ensure real accountability. The provisions in this bill are just cosmetic. The commissioner of the environment will not even be able to evaluate the department's action plan—

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

Order. Before I recognize the hon. parliamentary secretary, I want to remind the hon. member that any props in the House must be neutral, if possible.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, just to correct the record, I am not the parliamentary secretary; I am the member for Guelph. I was also referred to as the minister. I appreciate the roles and promotions, but I really appreciate the job I am able to do as the member of Parliament for Guelph.

The method of setting the targets is included within this legislation. The goal, first of all, is to reach our 2030 targets, and those have been agreed on with the 193 nations that are still within the agreement done in Paris. The next target is zero by 2050. We will review those on a regular basis, both through Parliament and through the work of the Auditor General.

The hon. member across the way sits on the public accounts committee with me, and I know we will see the action items for not reaching the targets that have been set—

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

We have time for one last question, from the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, on June 17, 2019, the Liberal government declared a national climate emergency. The very next day, on June 18, the same government approved the Trans Mountain pipeline, which it bought.

The author of A Good War: Mobilizing Canada for the Climate Emergency, Seth Klein, answers what I believe to be a central question regarding the bill. He lists four markers for when we know a government has shifted into emergency mode: It spends what it takes to win, creates new economic institutions to get the job done, shifts from voluntary and incentive-based policies to mandatory measures and tells the truth about the crisis.

Does the hon. member for Guelph believe, after the government declared a climate emergency, that the bill or any action by the Liberal government adequately responds to these critical emergency markers?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the shortest answer would be yes. Some of the oil and gas sector companies, such as Enbridge, Suncor and Shell, are also committing to net zero by 2050. The agreement we had for 2030 included the upstream and downstream emissions of the pipeline, but we know we have to do better in our transition.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to talk about the new Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act.

Successive governments have, for too long, kicked the can down the road and treated the climate crisis as though it were a problem for our children's generation. That ends now. We are the first generation to clearly see the impact of climate change and we are the last generation that can stop it. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We cannot saddle our children with the burden of a dying world and a sixth mass-extinction event. We must act now.

In December 2015, Canada joined 194 other parties in reaching a historic agreement to address climate change, through the Paris Agreement. This historic agreement aimed, at a minimum, to limit the global temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to keep the temperature increase to no more than 1.5°C. According to the 2018 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global emissions must reach carbon neutrality by 2050 to limit warming to the 1.5°C goal in the Paris Agreement.

Despite what some may claim, Canada is uniquely vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, and in the north, warming is occurring nearly three times as fast.

Canadians recognize that we need to act now to avert this crisis, and they will not tolerate any inaction. I know this because in my riding of Kitchener Centre, constituents come to talk to me about climate change more than any other issue. Young Canadians are rightfully frightened by the thought of what their futures will look like if we do not get this under control now, and this is not a debt I am willing to leave them.

I was elected on a promise to get Canada to net zero by 2050, and that is what the bill would achieve. Within six months of the bill's coming into force, the minister would be required to set a new 2030 milestone target that exceeds our commitments under the Paris accord and deliver our comprehensive plan on how we are going to reach it. This is the vital first step toward achieving our 2050 goal of net-zero emissions, and every step of the way, every target and every action will be based on the best science available, as well as input from Canadians of all backgrounds and experiences.

That is why the bill would create an advisory body of 15 experts made up of key stakeholders, including indigenous people and other members of the public, who would provide expert advice to the minister in an annual report. This would ensure that we reach not only our 2030 target, but also every target that comes after it.

These targets will be vital to keeping the government on track, but they are only one piece of the puzzle. Targets need to be followed up with action. Fortunately, our government is already moving ahead on that action to ensure that Canada is at the forefront of the green economy of tomorrow.

The World Bank estimates that climate action will create $30 trillion in new investment opportunities by 2030, and our government is already making sure that Canadians are the ones who will reap those rewards. Through policies such as retrofitting homes and other buildings to be energy efficient and building new clean-energy infrastructure, not only are we taking action to meet our climate goals, but we are investing in the economy of the future and creating well-paying, middle-class jobs for Canadians.

We are making zero-emission vehicles more affordable for Canadians and investing in new charging infrastructure so that Canadians coast to coast to coast can confidently reach their destination in an electric vehicle. Electric vehicles are important for decarbonizing our economy, but to truly maximize their potential, we need to ensure that the energy used to recharge their batteries is generated from nonemitting and renewable sources.

The energy sector will play a key part in our national effort to reach carbon net zero, and the federal government will be there to support it. Initiatives such as the clean power fund will not only help increase our clean energy-generating capacity, but also build the infrastructure that moves energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed.

Our government knows that we cannot reach net zero without the ingenuity and know-how of the energy sector. Fortunately, the energy sector is already stepping up and embracing this opportunity.

Oil and gas companies such as Enbridge, Suncor and Shell have already made commitments to net-zero emissions, and they are innovating to rise to the challenge. The oil and gas sector has recognized the value behind our approach to legislate accountability and the importance of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has expressed its support for this policy, and so has Shell Canada. It stated, “We applaud the Government of Canada’s action...and look forward to working with them and doing our part to help Canada achieve this goal.”

Canada's energy sector is onside and recognizes the importance of this legislation. In fact, this legislation has received broad support, not just from the oil and gas industry, but across all sectors of the economy, from major labour organizations such as Unifor, to financial giants like TD Canada Trust, to major business organizations like the Business Council of Canada and the Toronto Region Board of Trade.

Perhaps most importantly, environmental groups have overwhelmingly supported this vital step toward ensuring that we reach net zero by 2050.

Ecojustice wrote:

This legislation is a significant step to put Canada on the course to achieve its emissions targets and sets up Canada to become a global leader.

It is a comprehensive bill that can maintain momentum for climate action when the spotlight is off the federal government.

The David Suzuki Foundation stated:

This legislation could be game-changing. It promises to be a foundation for Canada's path to meeting climate goals, domestically and internationally. Moving forward with climate accountability is exactly what the climate emergency calls for.

Smart Prosperity Institute said, “This #NetZero law charts a course for Canada’s environmental & economic success. It will help us keep pace with global leaders in tackling climate change & build a roadmap for future competitiveness & jobs in a changing world.”

This support is vitally important for ensuring we are successful in reaching our goal, and that support is possible because we listened to experts.

Our government cannot reach these goals alone. Everyone must come together so that we can achieve net zero. While each individual and business have a role to play in making net zero happen, it is the government that must be held accountable, and the bill does exactly that.

Not only does the bill require the establishment of legally binding targets every five years, it also requires that an emissions-reduction plan, a progress report and an assessment report be tabled in the House of Commons for each five-year milestone. They will be key to ensuring that this government and successive governments remain transparent and accountable to Canadian voters.

Perhaps equally important, in addition to these robust accountability mechanisms, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, an independent body, must examine and report on the Government of Canada's progress within five years of this act's coming into force and every five years thereafter. Enshrining this key oversight into law would ensure that Canadians know if their government is living up to its obligations on climate change and would provide the public with the necessary information to hold us accountable.

The bill is not a plan to make a plan. The bill sets clear priorities, timelines, accountability mechanisms and independent oversight to reach and then exceed our Paris Agreement goals. This vital framework forms the road map to a better Canada and sets us on a trajectory to achieve a clean and prosperous future. However, to achieve that future, we must start today at this key juncture in time.

When future generations look back at the fight against the climate crisis, they will see this as the moment when Canadians decided not to do what is easy, but to do what is right, and when we chose to look to the future, not the past. The actions we take now will define not only our children's future, but the future of every generation that comes after them.

Never before in history has one generation had as much responsibility for the well-being of all subsequent generations as ours does today, so I call on my hon. colleagues to put aside differences and work together for the good of our planet and all humanity. Not just the future of our country, but the future of our world depends on it.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am from British Columbia and a nascent B.C. LNG industry could put a lot of people to work. It could also help eliminate a lot of coal. There are also some incredible projects, for example, the Teck Frontier mine, which is proposed to be net zero by 2050 and would give tons of jobs to first nations, as well as Albertans. The energy sector has an incredible role to play, not just for our prosperity and social services today, but also toward the technological improvements that need to happen.

I have asked the minister and many members to support amendments to make sure that the advisory board includes Canadian energy industry representatives. Does the member support that necessary information? They are going to be the ones helping us understand how the industry can transform within some of these restrictions. If they are not there, then we are not going to be able to get to any of the things the member purports to support.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend and I serve together on the environment committee and I always look forward to his interventions.

We can agree on one thing, that the energy sector is going to be extremely vital to reaching net zero. I can even quote Shell Canada, which said, “Shell's ambition is to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050 or sooner, in step with society. We applaud the Government of Canada's action today, and look forward to working with them and doing our part to help Canada achieve this goal.” I know the energy sector is proud of this bill and we are proud to work with it.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to be really clear. Not a single Canadian government has ever met its target. Now we have a piece of legislation before us that proposes, far in the distance, to get to that target. I have heard some government members in the House today say that technology will take time to roll out. However, I would say that innovation responds to urgency.

I am wondering if the member could share with the House how urgent this actually needs to be to get it done. Is there a real commitment from the government, in 10 years, to get to those targets?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with her that technology will be extremely important as we face net zero. I come from an area of the country, Kitchener-Waterloo, that is well known for its high-tech industry. I know companies there are working right now, on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, to make sure that we achieve our goals, and more importantly, that we solve this crisis.

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

Madam Speaker, in the earlier part of the member's speech, he talked about EVs, electric vehicles. We know that the world is changing in terms of the automobile industry. Last year, it was reported that 7% of all vehicles in the world were electric vehicles. I am wondering if he can expand a bit on how important he sees the electric vehicle revolution being to Canada's ability to meet the goals that we have set out in this legislation.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. I am really happy to answer it because the federal and provincial governments made an investment in the Ford Oakville plant to make electric vehicles. I know right now there is also a rebate that is in place to help Canadians bring down the price of EVs, zero-emission vehicles.

When we look at electric vehicles, we have a tremendous opportunity because right now it is a nascent industry. We have an opportunity to be a global leader. We see countries in Europe that are discussing how they can also electrify their networks, but more importantly, this could be something that Canada could lead in, as it has led in many other areas.

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

Madam Speaker, I am just curious if the hon. member has read the IPCC's special report on 1.5°C from October 2018, because that report specifically found that there is no economic or technological barrier to holding to 1.5°C. We have all the technology we need. What we lack is the political will.

What we need to do is increase our target, get off the Harper target, get onto the Paris target, because we do not have a Paris target—

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

We need a very brief answer from the member for Kitchener Centre.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe this bill will hold the government accountable, it will be transparent and it will lead us in the right direction.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on Bill C-12, which is legislation that would create transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Climate change is, without a doubt, one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. It is literally an existential crisis. The House already recognized this when, spurred on by the likes Greta Thunberg in Sweden and so many environmental advocates right here in Canada, we passed a motion in June 2019 declaring a climate emergency, but now it is critical to act and to act quickly on the science that is all around us.

If the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us anything, it is that public policy, be it in relation to health or the environment, must always be informed by evidence and based on science, and this science is unequivocal. Bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tell us that climate change is real, it is happening all around us and if we, as national governments, do not act decisively, the damage will be irreversible. That is exactly why we must act now, for our children, for our grandchildren, for the future of this country and indeed, it is not hyperbolic to say, for the future of this planet.

In fact, my view is that Canadians of all ages are actually ahead of us on climate action and climate activism. We saw this clearly when tens of thousands of Canadians took to the streets in September 2019 to participate in climate marches and demonstrations right across the country. We saw this again when Canadians went to the polls in the last federal election in October 2019, returning our government to power based on a commitment to a more sustainable and greener future, a commitment where we stated we would not only meet but exceed Canada's 2030 emissions reduction goals while setting legally binding, five-year milestones to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Today is an important day. This debate is an important debate, because in tabling and debating Bill C-12, we are fulfilling that important campaign commitment. We know how important this issue is to Canadians across the country.

I, personally, as the member for Parkdale—High Park, know how important this issue is to my constituents through the individuals and groups who speak to me constantly about the urgency of acting on climate change. PHP 4 Climate Action, Green 13, Green Parkdale, Greenest City, Roncy Reduces, Bloor West Reduces, Humberside's HEAT and EcoSchools Canada are just a sample of the groups that are vocal about this issue and are advocating on this issue. These are groups that want not only a net-zero emissions future, but who are already taking concrete steps now to change their behaviour and model best practices for others. It is through these types of community-led, grassroots initiatives that I know we can, together, build back better and greener coming out of this pandemic. I thank these community leaders for all of their advocacy and for always prompting and pushing for even greater ambition on climate change.

When I had the opportunity to go COP24 in Katowice, Poland, prior to attending that climate change conference hosted by the UN, I consulted these leaders. I asked for their input and advice about the issues to focus on during my time at COP24, and that help and expertise was invaluable.

I will turn now to Bill C-12 and how it fits into the broader plan to tackle climate change.

This historic piece of legislation will help us meet our net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target by 2050 by imposing a legally binding process for the federal government. Concretely, this means that this government and every future government, regardless of political affiliation, once the bill is passed, will be held accountable when it comes to lowering our greenhouse gas emissions in order to do our part in reaching the overall goal of net zero by 2050.

This type of legislation will be pivotal to put us on the path to meet the overall objective identified in the Paris Agreement, which has been spoken about on many occasions during the course of today's debate, and the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels. We have to reach these targets. The stakes of not doing so are simply too high, again, not just for this country but for all countries wanting to meet the 2050 objective, which is an objective that has been agreed to by 120 different nation-states around the planet. In order to do so here, what we are proposing with this legislation is establishing clear milestones to ensure that we are making continued and steady progress.

Bill C-12 would ensure that five-year targets would be set. A progress report and an assessment report would be required for each step. By doing this, we are putting clear measures in place to ensure that the fight against climate change is prioritized and addressed in a transparent manner. We are making sure that if a future government misses a five-year target, it will be held accountable for it by assessing its failure and putting in place a plan to meet its shortfall.

There would be no excuses. The report would explicitly need to mention the reasons why the federal government failed to meet the target, a description of the actions that the government is planning to undertake in order to address the failure, and any other relevant information the minister wished to include.

Further, Bill C-12 also contemplates an advisory body, composed of 15 members, that would be created in order to assist the minister of the environment in achieving net zero emissions by 2050. It would be consulting and engaging with experts, stakeholders, indigenous peoples and the public. Based on these consultations, the advisory body would be providing advice to the government on how to meet its targets.

This is an important measure to keep the Government of Canada focused and on track when it comes to reducing emissions and formulating policy that is informed by science and expertise, as I outlined earlier.

Finally, Bill C-12 would require the minister of finance to publish an annual report that explains how the financial risks and opportunities associated with climate change are being considered by departments and Crown corporations in their decision-making process.

Let us turn to the issue of milestone years and targets. It is something that has been raised by commentators, and on the floor of this Chamber during the context of this debate. Concerns have been raised, mainly, that the first five-year cycle under Bill C-12 commences in 2025, with the first milestone year being 2030. This begs the question of what transpires between now and 2025 under this legislative model. When I reflected on this myself and looked back at the bill, I noted a couple of important points.

Hypothetically we could see passage of this legislation, if Parliament undertook the scrutiny required. The first point is that within six months of this bill coming into force, potentially in the fall of 2021, we could have a tabling of the milestone plan and the target.

Second, the bill stipulates that within five years of coming into force, again, potentially five years from the spring of next year, the commissioner of the environment, in conjunction with the Auditor General, would examine and report on the Government of Canada's implementation of measures aimed at mitigating climate change.

We have also heard a lot about these progress reports. I mentioned them myself earlier in my comments. A progress report must be tabled, and it would form part of the government's scrutiny and the scrutiny of all future levels of government.

The frequency of these types of progress reports is important. That should not be understated. If we were to have a current progress report, looking back on what we have accomplished as a Liberal government since we came to power in 2015, I would posit that progress report would be extensive.

Why do I say that? No federal government has done more to fight climate change than the current federal Liberal government. Our very first action in 2015 was to participate in the Paris conference. With 194 parties, we also signed on to and led the Paris Agreement shortly after. As soon as we came into office, we decided to unmuzzle scientists, which prompted one Globe and Mail reporter, Mark Hume, to state, “The Conservatives wanted tight control on the message and didn't trust their own experts to be experts. That has all changed now. [The Prime Minister] has unmuzzled the scientists.”

In 2018, we championed the development of an Ocean Plastics Charter following the G7 ministerial meeting on climate change. This charter is now endorsed by 25 governments and 60 businesses and organizations worldwide. It aims to keep our oceans free from plastics.

In 2018, we put a price on carbon pollution. This concrete action is a pillar of our approach to climate action. It applies to individuals and industries. The current price on carbon is $30 per tonne. By 2022, it will rise to $50 per tonne, as will the climate action incentive rebate, which allows Canadians the opportunity to take those dollars and invest in greener alternatives in their everyday lives. By putting a price on pollution, we are clearly contributing to lowering emissions.

On October 7 of this year, the Minister of Environment provided more details on our plan to ban harmful single-use plastics. This is an ambitious step toward achieving zero plastic waste.

What is important to underline, as a final comment, is that we also believe fundamentally that the economy and the environment are not dichotomous. This is a false presentation put forward most frequently by members of the official opposition.

The single thing I will point members to is something that has already been raised in the context of today's debate. We are funding battery vehicles: zero-emitting vehicles. Plants are being opened in Oakville and Windsor, by Fiat and Ford, to do just that. It will embrace a just transition and show that we can build toward a sustainable future and keep people employed at the same time.

This bill is part of that broader suite of approaches. It is a critical bill for this generation and future generations. It is one I hope all parliamentarians can get behind.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am beginning to think, watching the reactions of my hon. colleagues on the other side, that tabling this bill demonstrates they have a wonderful sense of humour.

They are talking about targets in 2030, 10 years from now, to 2050, 30 years from now. There is an old saying an economist once said: Eventually we are all dead. These targets are so far out.

Let us look at what the Liberals are doing today, and for that I turn to former Liberal MP Dan McTeague, who just put a commentary out. He said that the current targets for 2020, which the Liberal government adopted in 2015, are going to be missed by 99.2%. That is not even close to being serious. Regarding the Paris targets the government has accepted, it is on track today to miss those by at least 15%, and we are still 10 years out.

How can we take all this talk of post-2030 seriously when the government cannot even hit targets today? They are missing them by 99.2%.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, forgive me if there is a bit of incredulity on this side of the House in the climate activism I am sensing from that member.

In terms of what we have been doing, I listed some of the things, if he was listening to my comments, and I will list more. We put approximately $60 billion into initiatives such as cleaner infrastructure, public transit and ensuring home retrofits. I mentioned the carbon price, which is the single most important lever, and is appreciated by industry and individuals.

The member's concern would only be valid if no action had been taken to date. I have listed copious examples of what we have done since 2015 to address climate action.

What this bill would do is ensure that not only we, but any future government, would maintain that course, show further ambition and be held accountable to the Canadian people. That is surely an initiative all parliamentarians should be behind.

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

Madam Speaker, it is incredible to hear Conservatives talk about meeting climate objectives and their new-found desire to do something about climate change.

Not even five or six years ago, Stephen Harper was literally muzzling scientists and telling them they were not allowed to utter the words climate change. Suddenly members on the opposite side of the House are challenging the government for not doing enough to fight climate change.

I am wondering if the member can expand a bit more on where he sees we have actually come in the last five to six years since Stephen Harper was in power.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an important point. We have come to a stage where the Canadian public and Canadian businesses are behind the same goal. It is unfortunate not all parties are behind the same goal. I think about four out of five parties in this chamber are. The goal is simply that we have to be heading toward a net-zero-emissions future.

I will return to that zero-emission vehicle strategy, because it is not just about opening up plants in Oakville and Windsor that will make zero-emission vehicles. It is also about targets we set as a government. Another part of what we campaigned on was to set a goal that there would no longer be such a thing as an emitting vehicle in this country by 2040.

That is the kind of ambition we need to see. That is the kind of ambition that will be entrenched in this kind of proposal, because the plan to get to that goal will be entrenched as part of the five-year cyclical objectives and targets that would be established under Bill C-12. Those are the kinds of initiatives we—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, this bill references the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; however, the Liberal government has not actually enforced the UN declaration into law.

Will the Liberals put action behind their words? They are talking a good game about doing that. Will they actually commit to upholding the rights of indigenous people by enforcing and bringing into law the UN declaration?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that is an important question. It is important to inject indigenous perspectives into this discussion. That is something that has informed our approach to the climate throughout, and that will continue for the purposes of Bill C-12.

In direct response to the member for London—Fanshawe, absolutely, we have been crystal clear. It is in the Minister of Justice's mandate letter. He has been public about committing to tabling UNDRIP legislation as government legislation before the end of this year. That is exactly what we intend to do, and I would note, for her edification, that in the last Parliament it proceeded as a private member's bill, and it was only stopped in the Senate because of opposition from the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, it is very important and great to rise today in the House on Bill C-12, which I have read extensively over the last couple days. It is the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act.

Why is it important to rise? It is because of the opportunity that is ahead of us, the residents in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, the residents here in the province of Ontario, and the residents and all the citizens across Canada, to achieving net zero by 2050.

What are the economic opportunities that we are speaking about? Why is the target of the legislation we have put forward in this House important to families like mine and to kids all over this country? It is because of the economic opportunities that it would create, the families that would benefit from it and a stronger, cleaner and healthier environment, which we all want to have and which should be a non-partisan issue to achieve.

I have read extensively on this topic. Even just yesterday, the Royal Bank of Canada laid out a plan on carbon sequestration with some comments from one of the economists there. I just want to read this out, because this is not a partisan issue, this is about growing the economy. We see this from Conservatives in the U.K. under Boris Johnson and in other places in the world. People are coming together and working together on getting to net zero.

RBC wrote in its report:

As it lays out long-term climate plans, the federal government has an opportunity to write a new chapter in Canadian climate policy: one that acknowledges the importance of the energy sector, encourages abatement across industries, leverages investment from the private sector, and spurs innovation in sectors that contribute the most to our climate challenge.

Yes, we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, we want to set those targets. The framework that is laid out in Bill C-12 is functional and workable, and within six months of the legislation enactment, a plan would be put forward to continually lower greenhouse gas emissions.

In my research, I saw this week “Canada's Energy Future 2020”. I encourage all members of Parliament to read it and look through that document. It is about Canada's energy future and how important it is that we have different sources of energy in this country to continue to power our economy going forward.

There is one company I need to highlight, because it is so important. There is an economic opportunity here in the world, because we are talking about a global economy that our country participates in. It is a global economy that our workers compete in. We need to make sure they have the right skills, training and know-how to compete against the best and the brightest, and we have the best and the brightest in this country.

I think about the Enel Group. Most MPs know my heritage. My parents came from Italy and then immigrated to Canada. Here is a company from my parents' homeland, which just received the ranking of number one on Bloomberg's sustainability index. It is a company that is investing in green technologies all over the world.

I will read a comment from earlier this year. I believe it is from January 27, 2020. It says, “For the first time, the United Nations Global Compact has galvanized the chief financial officers...of global companies—responsible for investments worth $14 trillion—by establishing a taskforce to help close the gap in funding a sustainable future.”

That is what we are talking about. We are talking about a conversation for tomorrow. We are talking about our future, and we need to get with it. We need to get this legislation implemented. We need to develop that plan, work with the private sector, the provinces and non-profits to move Canada forward, because the opportunity is there. We have the skills. We have the know-how. We have the resources.

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

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 26 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.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak as the member of Parliament for Vaughan—Woodbridge on behalf of the residents of my riding as their strong voice in Ottawa. I know first-hand how important the issue of climate change is to Vaughan residents.

Our government has adopted a whole-of-government approach, partnering and consulting with industry and stakeholders to tackle climate change and ensure not only a healthy environment but a strong economy for generations, including for my two young daughters, Eliana and Natalia, and all youth across the country.

It is great to speak today and continue the debate on Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, which would provide for the implementation of national targets and plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, with the objective of attaining net-zero emissions by 2050. Fighting climate change is most certainly about reducing or lowering greenhouse gas emissions, but it is also about a stronger Canadian economy and strengthening our middle class while helping those working hard to join it.

Many of my colleagues know that I am a champion of the private sector. I have increased linkages between countries through trade, investment and, most importantly, wealth creation. Our economic system has brought with it a high standard of living and has lifted literally billions of individuals out of poverty despite the current setback caused by the pandemic.

On climate change, industry and the private sector are again leading the charge. We see and hear about this every day. There are technological advances on many fronts, including right here in Canada, where electric buses are engineered, manufactured and assembled. There are announcements by automotive companies to produce electric vehicles here in Canada, made by the hard-working individuals at Ford's Oakville plant, Stellantis's Windsor facility and GM's operation in Ingersoll. My Vaughan—Woodbridge riding is home to a Tesla dealership where Canadians are able to purchase and pick up their electric vehicles. It is less than two kilometres from my constituency office.

The feedback from leading private sector stakeholders on Bill C-12 has been unequivocally positive. Allow me to quote from the Business Council of Canada's statement “Transparency around net-zero emissions targets is essential, business leaders agree”. In it, the council said, “Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets are important, as is the process to assess progress against those targets.... Clear guidelines, a predictable policy framework and a supportive investment environment will help them get there faster.”

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, or CAPP, represents an industry that is the largest exporting sector of the Canadian economy, with over $100 billion in export proceeds. The energy sector directly and indirectly employs nearly 900,000 Canadians. As CAPP noted:

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is committed to working with the Canadian government to meet emissions reduction objectives, which includes the ambition to achieve net-zero by 2050.

By working together, we can further accelerate innovation and develop technology that reduces emissions while delivering responsibly produced energy to meet global energy demand.

We all welcome the new leadership in the United States, as our neighbour to the south has rejoined the Paris climate accord. The Biden administration will once again join with the Conservative U.K. Prime Minister, the European Union and all 195 countries that have signed it, 190 of which have ratified it. Canadians expect no less than leadership, and that is what we are delivering through Bill C-12.

I wish to return briefly, in my remaining time, to a company that I mentioned in my first opportunity to speak to Bill C-12. I wish to dive a little deeper into it, as it is indicative of where the private sector is going and leading on climate change.

Enel is Europe's largest utility and the world's largest renewable energy provider, with nearly 100 million end-users across 33 countries. For years, Enel has been recognized as a leader of sustainable development in its work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We know this is a global issue and will require global leadership.

Speaking at the 2020 Bloomberg Green Summit, Enel CEO Francesco Starace laid out why the company for years has pursued policies in line with the United Nations sustainable development goals. As noted by the CEO, “We’re looking at sustainability, not just green energy—it’s a little larger. As the world evolves more and more into a circular and sustainable economy, it makes sense that financial instruments are tailored to that direction.”

In fact, in 2020, the United Nations Global Compact galvanized chief financial officers of global companies responsible for over $14 trillion of investments, which compares with the size of the Canadian economy of $2 trillion, by establishing a task force to help close the gap in funding for a sustainable and green future. Enel is the task force's patron sponsor and co-chair. Quite innovatively, the company issued its first sustainable development green SDG-linked bonds, denominated in U.S. dollars and euros, as part of its sustainable future.

The future is now. Innovation is driving the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. Yes, it will take time, but we know that Canada and Canadians are ready and excited for this future.

Bill C-12 provides the framework, the certainty and the rigour for Canada to achieve its goal of net zero by 2050. The bill requires the tabling and publication of targets, plans, progress reports and assessment reports. The initial target of 2030 must be set by the Minister of Environment within six months of the coming into force of this act, along with an emissions reduction plan. Notably, a progress report must also be tabled by 2027.

Bill C-12 is a dynamic document. In addition to having a robust parliamentary accountability mechanism, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, supported by the Office of the Auditor General, must examine and report on the government's implementation of the measures aimed at mitigating climate change within five years of the coming into force of this act and every five years thereafter.

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

Madam Speaker, the NDP clearly supports climate accountability. Jack Layton presented a bill 15 years ago that basically called for these measures. We have lost that 15 years. Science tells us that we have to do the lion's share of the work in the next decade to battle climate change, so we need accountability now.

We need a 2025 target and an audit of that target in 2025. I ask the parliamentary secretary why the government seems so unwilling to do this.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share the member's passion with respect to the immediacy of acting on climate change, and that is what our government is doing. I believe once the bill comes into force, within six months an emissions reduction plan needs to be tabled, and then a progress report must be done by 2027.

I know we need to act quickly. Bill C-12 is only one component of our government's fight against climate change. Obviously, putting in place a price on pollution, increasing that price and rebating it to Canadian citizens are also pieces of it.

I look forward to continuing to work with all colleagues to not only fight climate change, but capture the economic benefits of fighting climate change.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have a question regarding the comment about the 15-member advisory board. It would be outside of our government, and I am wondering what exactly that entails.

How long would these individuals sit on it? Has the government already chosen people to serve in this method? What responsibilities are there with regard to the Minister of Environment and the board? Is there accountability there in a reverse fashion?

I am concerned about the role of Parliament in this circumstance with the advisory board.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, obviously, oversight and accountability of Parliament are needed when we introduce laws and programs for all Canadians to benefit from. This ensures transparency and accountability.

The framework we have announced, to be implemented through Bill C-12, is very robust. I would love to go through all the measures we have introduced, but there are too many to do so. I could take this up offline with my hon. colleague.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to pick up on the previous question.

The issue was lack of accountability. There is really a lack of accountability and objectivity when the minister writes his own report and does his own evaluation. I am not alone in saying that. Groups I have met with recently, such as Mothers Step In, have pointed it out too. Bill C-12 also lacks objectives and targets.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of many accountability provisions within Bill C-12 is the requirement that the Minister of Finance publish annual reports. There are many measures within Bill C-12 that require accountability and transparency as we move to a net-zero society and move forward to capture the economic benefits of a low-carbon economy.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay was absolutely right. The science demands that we have a milestone year in 2025 that is meaningful.

The act, as written, is dangerous. How does the hon. parliamentary secretary square the real science with this fake bill?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I look to what the former leader of the New Democratic Party stated when we tabled Bill C-12. He said this was a real plan to fight climate change. A number of organizations and stakeholders commented positively on not only where this takes our government, but where this takes the country in hitting its 2050 target. I can send the hon. member the list.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House virtually.

Today we are talking about Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.

Before I get started, I just want to say that I am always proud to tell the House that Conservatives do not wake up every morning intent on destroying our planet. Quite the contrary, as our record shows. This issue will always be important to us, and we will take concrete action to protect our planet and create a better future for our children and grandchildren. I am always happy to reiterate that.

Here is what the document introduced in the House on November 19, 2020, says:

The purpose of this Act is to require the setting of national targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions based on the best scientific information available and to promote transparency and accountability in relation to achieving those targets, in support of achieving 15 net-zero emissions in Canada by 2050 and Canada’s international commitments in respect of mitigating climate change.

At first glance, that seems very promising.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the interpretation does not appear to be working.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it working now?

The interpretation is working again.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will continue.

At first glance, what I just read seems very promising. The Liberals have always been good at using buzzwords to suck Canadians in with their promises, especially when it comes to hot topics like environmental protection and climate change mitigation.

If we do not seem overly enthusiastic or prepared to blindly get on board with this Liberal government's proposal of a net-zero Canada by 2050, it is a reaction based on our experience. For example, the following is an excerpt from the mandate letter for the Minister of the Environment:

Support the Minister of Natural Resources to operationalize the plan to plant two billion incremental trees over the next 10 years, as part of a broader commitment to nature-based climate solutions that also encompasses wetlands and urban forests.

Two billion trees is a lot. Not only will Canada be helping to sequester CO₂, but it will also be creating jobs. According to a study published in Science magazine in July 2019, there is room for an extra 0.9 billion hectares of canopy cover on Earth, which is equivalent to 1.2 trillion trees. When added to existing forests, these trees could sequester 205 gigatonnes of CO₂, or one-quarter of the carbon present in the atmosphere.

Let us not forget the 2019 election campaign, when we got used to the Liberals' big talk and grand gestures to impress the public. They promised to plant two billion trees. We all know that wood absorbs CO₂, so it is not a bad idea in and of itself, but now the Liberals need to walk the talk. The current Liberal government is merely using smoke and mirrors to impress the public and putting everything off until later.

Reporter Mélanie Marquis wrote in La Presse that not a single tree has been planted to date. It is 2021, and the Liberals were elected in 2019. I know that they are, once again, going to blame COVID-19, and there may be some truth to that, but what action are they going to take?

If I recall correctly, in the spring of 2019, before Parliament was shut down for the scheduled election, there was a sense of urgency about taking action. There was bold talk about the importance of taking concrete action for the environment. Nothing was done.

The government has now introduced Bill C-12, which would implement measures and plans. Do we know when the first plan will be tabled? I will figure it out based on the number of majority elections. It will be tabled in two elections plus one year, that is in nine years, or in 2030.

Does the Liberal Party of Canada have any credibility to govern our country and make environmental decisions? The answer is that it has no credibility. It kicks the can down the road. This is the same approach it takes to finances: It puts things off, it takes no responsibility and it has no vision.

According to the calculations in Mélanie Marquis's article, we have lost one year of planting. By eliminating one year from the ten-year plan, we are now talking about 222 million trees a year. That is 608,828 trees a day. Is that realistic? That is the Liberal government's action plan for our planet. I have to admit that the Liberals made a smart promise; now, they cannot keep it. It is a gesture, but that is not all we must do to reach our objectives to protect our planet.

Yesterday, in Le Journal de Québec, Mothers Step In published an open letter to MPs from the Quebec City area, including me, so this concerns me as well.

Mothers Step In are mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers who want to leave a healthy planet for future generations. This pandemic has taught us a few things. We can take concrete action to make a difference, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our carbon footprint.

In its letter, the Mothers Step In organization writes that “Bill C-12, introduced by the government as its ‘net-zero emissions act’, is not a real climate bill. There is still time to improve it. We call on all our elected officials—especially the women—in Ottawa to act immediately and decisively. This is imperative, if we want to protect our children.”

To the children of the co-signers of the letter—Ernest, Madeleine, Élodie, Marguerite, Éléonore, Félicie, Stella, Megan, Louka, Mathilde, François-Xavier, Lionel, Annette, Henri, Chanelle, Ismael, Yameli and Hendrik—and to all the children of this beautiful country, I would like to say that the Conservative Party of Canada will take real action for the environment, as our record attests.

The other opposition parties accuse us of being oblivious and doing nothing to protect our planet. That is totally untrue, and I want to offer all parents, mothers, fathers and children some reassurance as to our record and tell them that the Conservative Party will work to save our planet and improve our environmental footprint.

The Conservative Party's list of accomplishments is long, and I would like to highlight some of them.

Between 2006 and 2015, we invested $17.7 billion in concrete action to improve the global environment. We created the clean energy fund to support clean energy research. We enhanced tax relief for green energy production and invested in 1,569 local conservation projects. We created the habitat stewardship program for species at risk. We invested $140 million in creating Canada's first national urban park, Rouge National Urban Park. That was an achievement. That is a fact.

We added an area nearly twice the size of Vancouver Island to the network of federally protected areas. In 2006, we created the chemicals management plan. In 2012, greenhouse gas emissions were 5.1% lower than they had been in 2005, and the economy grew by 10.6%.

We took action. That is why I find it absurd that the Liberal Party of Canada is positioning itself as a champion of the environment. Bill C-12—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member's time is up.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his speech on Bill C-12.

He spoke a lot about Mothers Step In. I also met representatives from this movement at an event where there were some very interesting conversations. Mothers Step In has criticized the 2050 deadline set in Bill C-12, saying that the date is too far off and that the targets in the bill are inadequate.

How does my colleague reconcile the fact that his party wanted to support Keystone XL, a project that the U.S. has abandoned, with the desire to meet ambitious targets by 2050? Can a self-proclaimed environmentalist want both of these things?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford for her question.

It is true that we need to do something. Back when acid rain was an issue, who was in power when the problem was resolved? It was a Conservative government. We trusted science and business owners to do research and development. Why must the environment and economic development be pitted against each other? I think it is possible to reconcile the two.

Let us work together. Let us work on development here. Let us set standards. Let us require the major polluters to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Let us make these companies get involved here so that the technology, research and development they create can be exported. Then we would become a leader on this.

My answer to the member for Shefford is yes, we can meet our targets. The Liberals are saying 2030, but the Conservative Party will take swift, meaningful action and deliver results and accountability.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be asking my question for my colleague in English. I am sorry; my French is not quite what it should be yet.

I am asking a question on behalf of a student in my riding. I spoke to the grade 5 students at Grandview Heights School in my riding. Neve, a grade 5 student, asked me if we should be doing more, and if we could be doing more, to make sure that we are getting to net zero. She talked about retrofitting homes and retrofitting our buildings with renewable energies.

We really have not seen the Liberals actually achieve very much on this front. I am wondering if you could talk about what you would see as an ambitious plan for that going forward.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am not going to talk about that, but I will put the question to the member.

I will remind the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona to address questions through the Speaker and not directly to the member.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona.

I hope the next few times I will speak with you in English.

I will speak French for now, but I too am working very hard to learn our great country's other official language.

Let me say that you are right. We could be taking meaningful action. Bill C-12, the bill we are debating, does not address the concerns or propose any quick, tangible measures.

I would like to remind my colleague of the Conservative Party of Canada's record from 2006 to 2015, when our government made major investments through the eco-energy innovation initiative. These are meaningful steps the Conservative Party took at the time, but the problem has not been solved yet, and we are all aware that it is going to take a collective effort.

When it comes to recycling, everyone is making an effort to achieve results, yet 65% of the recyclable items that Canadians go out of their way to put in blue bins end up in the landfill. There is a structural problem that we need to address.

That is the type of meaningful action we need to be taking.

I would like to reassure my colleague that we can take meaningful action to get results for the sake of our environment, both here in Canada and around the globe.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I know the member corrected himself regarding how to ask and answer questions, and so did the other member.

I would nevertheless like to remind all hon. members to address their remarks through the Speaker and not directly to other members.

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to join the debate on Bill C-12, Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, which is arguably the most important piece of climate legislation in our country's history.

This is because Canada should always be striving to act as a world leader in climate change action, but our history has not borne that out. The fact is that Canada remains a top-10 emitter in greenhouse gas emissions on an absolute basis, and that we are firmly entrenched as a top-three contributor of emissions on a per capita basis. For too long, Canada has set emission reduction goals and failed to meet them. Most of the time we have failed to even have a realistic plan to meet them.

In 2005, we committed ourselves via the Kyoto protocol to reduce emissions to an average of 6% below our 1990 emissions level. The Liberals, Bloc and NDP all voted in favour of meeting the targets. Former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin then brought forth project green, which was Canada's first real climate action plan to meet this commitment.

Unfortunately, the government was brought down and we were subject to a critical decade of being a climate laggard under the Harper government. We missed the Kyoto targets, and nothing was done to meet the Copenhagen 2020 targets. Over these years Canada's efforts were characterized as cowardly and Canada was even seen as a pariah in the context of UN-led climate change negotiations, giving us the dubious winning streak for the fossil of the year award, as well as a lifetime unachievement award.

This was not only a source of great national shame. By failing to act in the greatest and most urgent challenge of our world, we also eroded our soft power and our country's standing in the world.

Thankfully those years are over. Canada, led by our former minister of environment and climate change, was a key protagonist in negotiating the Paris climate accord, where the world committed to limiting global warning to 2 degrees Celsius while working towards limiting warming to 1.5 degrees.

Canada and the biggest emitters around the world are now committing to get to net-zero emissions by 2050. We have also committed to bringing in a strengthened 2030 target in time for the leaders' climate summit on April 22 of this year.

We know committing to it is not good enough. We need to hold ourselves accountable to meeting it. That is why the legislation we are debating today is so important. Bill C-12 will act as the legal foundation for Canada's strengthened climate action plan by mandating national emissions targets on five-year increments, based on the best scientific information available, as well as by requiring detailed strategies for achieving these targets and transparent reporting in efforts on the way to get there.

An independent net-zero advisory board will play a key role in informing the government in the setting of targets and the plans to meet them. This body was recently set up with a diverse and exceptional group of 14 experts, including several who have been highly critical of the government's efforts to date. I think that shows leadership.

I know the advice they will give the minister through annual reports on its activities, which the minister must publicly respond to, will be essential to ensure Canada's actions are informed by the specific challenges and opportunities our country faces.

Furthermore, the minister must table both progress reports and assessment reports in Parliament with respect to each target. As such, the public will be kept aware of our progress, two to three years prior to every target, and our prospective success or failure will be analyzed and presented to the House following each target date.

In the event of a failure to achieve a target, the minister must report on the reasons why Canada failed to meet the target, provide a description of actions the Government of Canada is taking or will take to address the failure to achieve the target. This is important both for transparency as well as for an accountability mechanism, because it will provide an ideal evidentiary base for a potential plaintiff to bring forth climate change litigation against the government for an action.

The Minister of Finance would also have a duty to publish annual reports explaining how the government is managing its financial risks and opportunities related to climate change. This obligation will require the government to report on all its operations, including crown corporations, such as Export Development Canada, so we can track how public money, even in organizations where the government is not involved in case-by-case investment decisions, and see how it is impacting our climate action.

This could set the stage for appropriate responses to be made. As such, Bill C-12 will effectively lay government spending bare, and ensure that Canada is putting its money where its mouth is.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, who is an independent officer of Parliament, must, at least once every five years, examine and report on the government's actions to date, providing additional scrutiny and transparency for Canadians.

The impact of multiple independent reports will have on climate accountability and transparency cannot be emphasized enough. However, the accountability bill itself does not stand, without acknowledging the importance and interdependence of Canada's strengthened climate plan introduced this past December. The strengthened climate plan, which has been deemed as absolutely marvellous by former NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, builds upon the 2017 pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change to ensure that we do not only meet but actually exceed our 2030 climate target.

It includes 64 new measures and $15 billion in new investments, on top of the $60 billion in investments in our 2017 plan. This strengthened plan includes measures that will support the rollout and retrofits of energy-efficient homes and buildings; support more sustainable transportation, such as electric vehicles; support cleaner electricity to power our country; help build a lower carbon advantage for our industries; and invest in nature-based solutions to climate change, such as planting two billion trees.

Importantly, we have committed to continually and predictably increasing the price on pollution, up to $170 a tonne by 2030, to provide an incentive and certainty to individuals and businesses alike. This is so they can make and invest in more sustainable choices, while at the same time ensuring that the vast majority of Canadian households will get more money back than they spend on this mechanism.

The former leader of the B.C. Green Party tweeted, “The tax and dividend approach is the 'gold standard' of pricing policies and Canada should be praised for this innovative approach”.

While this plan provides a blueprint, we need Bill C-12 to ensure it is followed by the current government, as well as to ensure that future governments are held to account as well. I hope that my colleagues across this House see likewise and will be supporting this bill to get to the committee stage.

With that said, Bill C-12 is not perfect. There are ways it can be strengthened, and I hope that the following areas will be looked at at the environment committee. I believe that the progress reporting in this bill needs to be sooner. This is so Canadians could judge and be confident that our government is on track and on the appropriate arc to reach both our 2030 greenhouse gas reduction goals and setting us on a realistic path to get to net-zero emissions by 2050. I think this can be done three or four years earlier on top of the other reporting obligations that will be taking place in the meantime.

In addition, I do not think we need to limit ourselves by setting only five-year advance emissions reduction targets. We must ensure that the government, the private sector and Canadians at large have a clear medium-term picture of where we are going, so actions and investments that will help us get there are made now. In this respect, I believe we can set targets for 10 years in advance, at the same time we are making the targets for five years in advance.

As an example of what this would mean, a 10-year plan would allow for the planning and construction of provincial electricity interties that could connect to B.C. and Alberta electricity grids to support Alberta to transition away from fossil fuel-emitting electricity. This would be stable baseload power from B.C. while Alberta invests in renewable electricity. Alberta has some of the greatest Canada-leading potential in this space.

Canada's action on climate change alone will not solve our global crisis, but we have a strong moral, scientific and economic reasons to play our parts. We are not a first mover in this space, and we can learn from the efforts of our counterparts in bringing in legislation, while fitting it to the particular context we have here in Canada. This bill and our climate plan will ensure Canada will not be left behind by our international counterparts in the massive $2.6-trillion opportunity of the green economy.

Achieving our targets is not something that can be accomplished by the Government of Canada alone, as, by virtue of our federal structure, the federal government does not hold all of the levers on emissions actions. We need all orders of government playing a part.

B.C. has put forth a strong plan with a clean B.C. plan and I am fortunate to have municipalities within my riding taking a leadership role, including the District of Squamish directly intervening in the Supreme Court of Canada case on the constitutionality of the federal backstop price on pollution. We need municipalities on board because half of our emissions come from within municipal boundaries, but we also need to be there in partnership with them, as they often face the biggest costs in adaptation.

I will conclude today by asking my colleagues to support Bill C-12, arguably our most important piece of climate legislation in a decade, to get to committee. The measures I have identified in my speech are potential amendments, and I know my colleagues have identified others that we can make to make this important legislation even better.

We let one party's intransigence on climate action derail our country for a decade before. Let us not make that same mistake again. Let us deliver the climate action that the vast majority of Canadians want to see, and let us pass climate accountability legislation.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have four questions on the 15-member outside advisory board: Have those participants already been approached? What is the time frame of serving on that advisory board for organizations and/or individuals? Who is the advisory board accountable to within Parliament? What is the role it is playing in requiring the Minister of Environment to table plans?

I would appreciate having a far broader perspective on the role of that advisory panel.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I will be able to get to all four of my hon. colleague's questions, but I will mention that this net-zero advisory body has already been established. There are 14 members who have been appointed. This advisory body will play a key role in helping engage with the public and inform the types of actions the government can and should take.

The advisory board could potentially inform some sectoral strategies that it could take, and it needs to submit annual reports to the minister, which the minister must then publicly respond to. Those are annual reports that will be happening each year. I think it is going to play a very critical role in ensuring that we have accountability and are informed by the best science.

I would be happy to talk to the member opposite some more about how that can take place.

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

Madam Speaker, in the throne speech, the Liberals said they wanted to meet the Paris targets by 2030, but there is nothing about those targets in the bill.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I think we are both passionate about the importance of taking strong action on climate change in this country, now and always.

With respect to his question, as part of this legislation the government would need to bring forward a plan to meet the 2030 targets within six months of it passing. Recently the government has committed to bringing forth a new 2030 target by the April 22 leaders' climate summit, which is going to be hosted by the U.S.

This will be an important time to first set that target. Six months hence, the plan to meet that new target will have to be made, as would be required by this piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his sincerity on this issue. I know we are both very interested in and concerned about the climate issue. I also know that he is familiar with the call for not just an interim progress report, but also a 2025 milestone target. This is really important to hold the government accountable. After all, 2025 will be not five but 10 years since the Liberals first took government and started working on climate change.

I am wondering if he can explain to me, because I still do not understand, the reluctance to put that interim milestone target in place to ensure accountability leading to 2030.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his leadership in this as well, both before his time in Parliament and during. I think what is important to show here is that we are on the right track to get to our 2030 targets, and we are going to be on a clear path to get to net-zero emissions by 2050.

The target date that the Paris climate accord has is 2030. It is the date countries are using to ensure we are on the right track. I think part of the challenges of establishing a 2025 target is that we would first have to negotiate with the provinces, territories, first nations and many others. We then might be prioritizing short-term actions to reach those 2025 targets, and I think what we really need to be focused on are some of the major systemic changes that will lead to the deep emission reductions we need to make by 2030 to set us on a path to 2050.

I mentioned in my speech the potential for great interties. There is a huge opportunity there within Canada and across the borders. I think those are the big projects we need to undertake now that might not pay off by 2025—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the time is up.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country may have inadvertently just mislead the House by misstating what is in the Paris agreement. It very clearly refers to 2025 as a key year for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately that is a point of debate. The hon. member may want to raise the issue during questions and comments.

Resuming debate, we will go to the hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-12, since I am concerned about environmental issues.

My party is in favour of the principle in Bill C-12, but unfortunately the bill does not go far enough. We were off to a good start, but sadly, the government shows no ambition with Bill C-12.

I would like to point out, because it seems essential to me, that all countries that care about the environment are putting forward legislation that will set greenhouse gas, or GHG, reduction targets. Unfortunately, in Bill C-12 these targets are nowhere to be found. Through the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, my party introduced Bill C-215, which sets greenhouse gas reduction targets.

If you compare Bill C-12 against Bill C-215, you quickly realize that nothing in Bill C-12 holds the government accountable for meeting its net-zero emission targets. It contains nothing to make future governments accountable for their actions. However, that would be necessary. There are no target requirements.

I find it rather strange that Bill C-12 sets out intentions. I always have good intentions. I want to lose weight. I intend to do it, but, unfortunately, I do not. We need to set achievable targets. That is a fact, but we need to at least set some targets. Bill C-215 talked about a 30% reduction by 2030.

I spoke earlier about the lack of a control mechanism—other than the political parties, which is rather problematic—to let the government know, objectively and impartially, whether it is meeting its targets. This bill does not contain any such mechanism, unlike the bill introduced by my party.

The government was on the right track, but it did not go far enough. When I was thinking about it earlier, I wondered why the government would be so wishy-washy about climate targets. Often, when we talk about the environment, I think the biggest challenge is striking a balance between the environment and the economy.

For those with an interest in environmental issues, the 1987 Brundtland report introduced the idea of sustainable development and, for the first time, people tried to strike a balance between the environment and the economy. I think the Canadian government has a lot of work to do on that front.

Balancing the environment and the economy is challenging, but so is figuring out how to overcome national self-interest. That is something that often comes up. Every time we talk about climate change, we hear the same key phrase. It is something I often hear from my Conservative colleagues. They say, “Yes, but China and the U.S. are doing worse”, as though that clears us of all responsibility.

There are therefore two main questions. How do we overcome national self-interest? How do we strike a balance between the economy and the environment? These two questions lead me to the crux of the environmental issue in Canada. The problem, in a word, is oil.

The Canadian economy revolves entirely around the oil industry. The Quebec nation often pays the price of a national self-interest centred on the oil industry. If I am not mistaken, other than Norway, the Quebec nation is one of the only nations in the world whose economy is not based on fossil fuels.

We therefore need to make both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party aware of the fact that Canada's future does not lie in petroleum resources. The best example is what can be done with the forestry industry. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources held six meetings and was told by the main stakeholders in the forestry industry that it is probably the most promising sector in the fight against GHGs. We must make good use of the forest. It is probably the most promising sector.

The forest is a carbon sink. After 70 years, a tree begins to release the carbon it has sequestered all its life through a natural process. It will either be devoured by insects, or rot, or be consumed by fire. Therefore, we must collect this wood, which has sequestered some carbon, and make full use of it, something the federal government has never considered.

I will give an example that I have repeated ad nauseam for some time. Take the construction sector. If we replace a cubic meter of steel and concrete with wood, we can reduce CO2 emissions by between 1.1 tonnes and 2.1 tonnes. This would represent 18 tonnes of carbon sequestered in 20 cubic metres of wood used for every house that would be built in Quebec.

I mentioned the construction sector, but there are many other possible applications. Now, with what is known as the bioeconomy, we can replace all petroleum-based products and generate bioplastics and even the medical equipment that was in short supply during the pandemic.

One company, FPInnovations, managed to make masks out of wood pulp in just under six weeks. We now know that we can use moulds that are also made out of wood pulp to make certain types of masks that can replace the well-known N95 masks that have been in short supply during this crisis.

If the federal government wants to meet targets it should start by setting some. To meet them, simple measures can be put in place. In its recovery plan, the Bloc Québécois proposes using carbon footprint as a criterion for purchasing power in the federal government's procurement policy. That is entirely feasible and we could leverage that into support for the forestry industry.

I want to address another essential point. I talked about national self-interest and the fact that we must reconcile the economy and the environment.

During the period from 2017 to 2020, the federal government invested $24 billion in the oil industry. Out of that $24 billion, $17 billion was used to nationalize the Trans Mountain pipeline.

During that same period, the federal government invested $950 million in Canada's entire forestry industry. For Quebec, that means just $71 million a year. Out of that $950 million, 75% are loans. These are not net investments going into the forestry sector.

This is clearly a double standard. As long as we stick to the narrative of putting oil before technologies that would help us reduce our carbon footprint, we will have the same problem. I do not want to malign anyone, but I think that this situation might explain the federal government's lack of ambition when it comes to setting greenhouse gas reduction targets.

As I was saying earlier, we have a solution. The forestry industry is where the economy and the environment intersect. Everyone is talking about the huge potential for innovation in the forestry industry, but the Government of Canada has not committed to or invested in this solution.

Our other solution has to do with transportation electrification. The government has indicated that it plans to make transportation electrification one aspect of its recovery plan. Now, if I were unscrupulous, I would point out that this plan is mainly focused on the economy of Ontario, the only province that no longer provides rebates for the purchase of electric vehicles. I am not unscrupulous, though.

This may be a step in the right direction for Quebec and its expertise. We already have expertise in batteries and we are quite advanced when it comes to hydroelectricity. The possibility of transportation electrification is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I apologize, but time is up. The hon. member has five minutes for questions and comments.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I noticed that the member said there is not a whole lot to this. It is full of good intentions, but it is just a map with an end goal and no route described.

He would possibly agree with me on this point: Why would there need to be anything if this is being put in the hands of an outside advisory board that already has been established without any input and before even coming before this House for debate?

It is not to recommend, but to inform the government of the direction to go and to require the environment minister to respond to the board's annual reports, yet it is the Minister of Environment and Climate Change who is responsible to the House of Commons and to Parliament. There is no accountability here to parliamentarians from the environment minister or from this board. Is that a concern to the member?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand my colleague's concerns. Indeed, all too often the problem with fighting global warming is that, perhaps for political gain, some politicians will put economic sectors that are very harmful to the environment ahead of setting targets.

If we had an independent body that could give us objective, neutral guidance, it would surely make our job as lawmakers easier.

To that end, I would like to point out all the bad press our Conservative colleagues are giving the carbon tax. It is an essential tool that can help us fight greenhouse gases, but the Conservatives have a really trumped up take on the tax.

Sometimes politicians need to set aside partisanship, look at what problems we will have to deal with and listen to what science is telling us. Unfortunately, I do not think that is what Bill C-12 will do.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have had the honour to represent the people of Vancouver Kingsway for some 12 years, which means I remember when Stéphane Dion was the environment minister and famously named his dog “Kyoto”. I cannot say how many different iterations of reducing carbon by so much by such a time I have seen; all I can say is that Canada's carbon emissions have gone up every single year that I have been in Parliament.

It seems to me that we need legislated targets if we are going to meet our Paris Accord commitments. I wonder what my hon. colleague thinks of that. As a means of dealing with the existential threat of climate change, should we set targets that are enforced by law, with annual reports to Parliament so that we can measure how we are progressing toward those targets?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely. We need to set targets. That is in some way the point of the bill that my party introduced.

Let us recall the Montreal Protocol, which made it possible to fight the gases that were causing holes in the ozone layer. Political action was taken and the situation was successfully contained.

However, that takes political courage. We need targets, but we also need political courage, and political courage will come when the Government of Canada is able to turn its back on the oil industry.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to present my opinion in French. I completely agree with my colleague from Jonquière, and I thank him.

Greta Thunberg has said:

Carbon neutrality by 2050 is surrender. We have to have a first milestone year in 2025. What are his comments?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Jonquière for a brief reply.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more.

First of all, I thank my hon. colleague, who is so kind and who always makes an effort to address us in French. It is a nice change, compared to some other members. I totally agree with her. There is an old adage in French about how one can never be too bold. I will not get into where it came from, but I am not seeing any boldness from the federal government at the moment. There is a consensus on this, and it is unfortunate.

Earlier I mentioned the two big questions: how to reconcile the economy and the environment, and how to put an end to this national self-centredness, with some refusing to act until others do. How do we fix this? For us, the answer is quite simple: We must get out of the Canadian oil economy. Until everyone is willing to take a hard look in the mirror, Alberta's economy will not improve and we will not achieve—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I must interrupt the hon. member, because his time has expired.

The hon. member for Davenport.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an absolute honour to rise in this House to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport on Bill C-12, Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act.

Other than my constituents' very legitimate concerns about COVID-19, which has been the top issue for the past year, the main other thing they have written to me about has been climate action and a green recovery. They have really been pushing me to make sure that our federal government will not only meet our Paris accord targets and achieve net-zero by 2050, but that as we come out of COVID-19 and restart our economy, we also continue to commit ourselves to a green recovery and a carbon-neutral future.

As we look at this bill, it is important to understand its scope and what it actually sets out to do. We also need to consider it in the context of the things that our government is already doing to lower emissions and the many challenges that are still in front of us. As well, it is important to recognize that it is only one part, albeit an extraordinarily key part, of our government's climate action strategy.

For years many of us have urged our government to present a clear, credible, transparent climate plan to show Canadians exactly how our government intends to meet our Paris accord targets. That has been a very direct ask of many environmentalists and many people in general from the Davenport community.

I was absolutely delighted when, in mid-December, our Minister of Environment and Climate Change presented a plan in a report called “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy”, which basically outlined a number of policy changes that will get us way past our original 2030 targets. It lays out a number of things in our plan to cut emissions across a number of different sectors, including our homes and transportation systems, industry and natural spaces. It talks a lot about our price on pollution and our plan to increase that price and provide incentives around that, as well as how we are going to help increase the kind of rebates that Canadian families are receiving to cover their costs and to invest in reducing emissions. I could go on, as I am very proud of this report, which presents a plan. I really encourage everybody to read it.

Bill C-12 will ensure that we meet our targets. What exactly does it do? The bill, as it is written right now, sets out that national targets and plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada be put in place with the objective of obtaining net-zero emissions by 2050. The act requires the tabling and publication of targets, plans, progress reports and assessment reports. The bill also stipulates the content of milestone plans and, in the event of a failure to achieve a target, requires the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to publicly explain the reasons. There are also a number of other accountability mechanisms, including for the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development, supported by the Office of the Auditor General.

I am really pleased that we have laid this all out, which is important for us to do. I am really pleased that it is included in Bill C-12.

I will also mention that our first target is for 2030, and that there are also subsequent milestone years in 2035, 2040, 2045, with targets being set and emissions reduction plans established at least five years in advance of each of the subsequent milestone years. That is basically it, in a nutshell. I know we have heard a lot about this over the last few speeches.

I think it is important for us to articulate that since we were elected in late 2015, we have done a lot to protect our environment and to lower our emissions. We have put a price on pollution. We have invested over $60 billion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help Canadians adapt to climate change, primarily through investments in clean technology and infrastructure. We have also started taking some urgent action to ban single-use plastics. I know we are well on our way to protecting 25% of our land and water by 2025.

My hon. colleague, the member for Beaches—East York, mentioned to the House late last year when he was speaking on this bill that our government's actions between 2016 and 2019 have already put Canada on the path to reducing 2030 emissions by 25%, or 227 million tonnes. That is more than any Canadian government in history has done to date.

The net-zero emissions accountability act is an important step forward. I know it has been lauded by a number of groups, including Greenpeace, which has called it an important step toward holding governments accountable for meeting science-based climate targets. I was also pleased to see the Business Council of Canada lauded it, saying that clear guidelines, a predictable policy framework and a supportive investment in the environment will help businesses get to net zero faster.

While Bill C-12 is an excellent bill, Davenport residents have been calling me for the last little while to indicate that there might be some ways we can improve it. Therefore, I held had a number of meetings with groups such as Just Earth, Fridays for Future, Leadnow and Seniors for Climate Action Now, all of which are really amazing groups that have been talking to me. They have advocated for us to have a stronger emissions target by 2030 of at least 45%, with frequent progress reports over the next 10 years. They want to make sure that the accountability mechanisms are as strong as possible and that support for the offices of the environment commissioner and Auditor General is locked in place. They also indicated that they would love to see the advisory council and its recommendations be fully public and transparent. Those are just some of the very important changes and recommendations they have suggested that could improve Bill C-12. I wanted to make sure I put them on the record.

The other thing I want to mention, because it is so important to the people of my riding of Davenport, albeit it is not directly relevant to what is in front of us, is the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies as soon as possible. I know this is something that was articulated to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. He held a virtual town hall with residents from my riding, where he very clearly indicated to us that he is working on this. I really am so grateful to him and his unbelievable team for their hard work.

I also want to mention that in our fall economic statement, we have also reaffirmed quite a few investments to ensure that we do reduce our emissions and get ourselves on track to exceeding our 2030 targets and meeting our net-zero target of 2050. We talked about a historic $14.9 billion investment, federal funding for public transit and a huge investment of almost $3 billion to help homeowners make their homes more energy efficient. We have talked about planting over two billion trees to fight climate change. I know that our Minister of Natural Resources made an announcement about that. We have committed almost a billion dollars to restore a degraded ecosystem to protect our wildlife and improve land and resource management practices, among many other things.

Davenport residents have indicated unequivocally to me that this continues to be top of mind for them. I want to read something from Natalie Zed, who wrote: “I understand that decisions are being made in cabinet right now and in the Liberal government about how to invest over $100 billion in a green recovery and/or beyond. I'm writing with everything I have to ask you to do whatever you can for the approval of that investment. COVID is a minor problem compared to what climate change is already bringing, and we have only seen the beginning of it. We're in the midst of a civilization crisis and collapse and it's super important for us to be focused on this.”

I want to close by saying how proud I am of the healthy environment and economy plan. I am very proud of this bill, which if passed will set out the legally binding five-year milestones and set in stone our emissions reduction plan.

In the end, climate change is not a Liberal, Conservative, Green Party, Bloc Québécois or NDP issue, but a federal issue, and all parties across all levels of government must do their part to urgently tackle climate change. Our current and future generations are depending on us to take urgent action now. We cannot wait any longer. No more words; it is all about action now.

I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss this bill. I urge all of my colleagues in the House to move for speedy passage of the bill.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, we all know that part of the Liberal plan to tackle climate change is the clean fuel standard. In the December 19, 2020 edition of the Canada Gazette, in the household and gender-based analysis impact study that was done, it states, “It is expected that increases in transportation fuel and home heating expenses would disproportionately impact lower and middle-income households.” It goes on to say that “single mothers are more likely to live in lower-income households, and may be more vulnerable to energy poverty and adverse impacts from increases to transportation and home heating prices.”

Through you, Madam Speaker, is the member explaining to single mothers in her riding that by introducing measures like the clean fuels standard, as well as the carbon tax, which would go up to $170 a tonne by 2030 as she indicated, it will drive up costs for them?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, the cost of living is top of mind for all Canadians right now. I will mention three things. One is the fact that U.S. President Biden has talked to our Prime Minister and has made a clean fuel standard a priority. It is something both our countries are going to be working very hard on, and that bodes well for us making things affordable in terms of transportation moving forward. Two, I have already mentioned the historic investments in public transit we are making and continue to make. These will continue to make it affordable for all income levels right across the country. The last thing I will mention is that we are increasing our climate change incentive over the years, and that will also be supporting families as we push very aggressively to meet our emissions targets.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention.

Bill C-12 is obviously a vital bill, and I am not the only one saying so. However, the bill is not ambitious enough and we need to go further. Once again, it is not me who is saying so, it is the mothers, grandmothers and aunts of the Mothers Step In movement who are worried.

I spoke earlier about the lack of transparency and the fact that the minister does his own evaluation. I also said that the objectives are lacking and the deadlines for these objectives are too far in the future. The bill talks about 2050, but we are talking about 2030, even 2025. The bill requires an evaluation every five years, but this could be done much more frequently, even every year if possible. That would enable us to truly evaluate the progress made and identify much more ambitious objectives for the future of our planet.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe this is a very bold plan. I also mentioned the healthy environment plan that came out in mid-December, which did a great job of outlining how we are going to meet our emissions target from a policy perspective and how we are going to be investing.

I have heard from Davenport residents that they want their targets in 2025 first. My understanding, from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, is that it is very difficult for us to do at this point in time. However, I believe we are considering, or are open to looking at, doing progress reports between now and 2028, which is the first time I think we have specified that we will do progress reports on our emissions targets.

It is very important for us to continue to try to improve, to be as accountable and transparent as possible and to be as aggressive as possible.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly hopeful the member for Davenport shows leadership within her own caucus to push the government toward that 2025 target. We know it is so important.

I met with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, which is putting forward its Delivering Community Power plan. It calls for the federal government to transition the Canada Post fleet to 100% renewable energy vehicles, to retrofit all Canada Post buildings to be more energy efficient, and so much more. I am wondering if she could talk about the support for the Delivering Community Power plan.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, many people do not know this, but I am the daughter of someone who worked at Canada Post for almost 30 years.

We all play a role, at every level of government across all our different sectors, in reducing our emissions, and it is important for us all to be making those investments and doing all we can to play a part in meeting our 2050 net-zero targets.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join you this evening to talk about Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. We are debating it in the House. I am pleased to take the time to discuss it because I have some experience when it comes to environmental issues.

I always find it fascinating to hear my Bloc Québécois, Green Party or even Liberal colleagues try to demonize the Conservatives by saying that, unlike other Canadians across the country, members of the big Conservative family do not care about environmental issues

In my opinion, the big difference between our political family and the others is that we are pragmatic. We want to take concrete action. We do not want to simply come up with hare-brained ideas that we will never be able to implement.

I know what I am talking about because I used to be the mayor of Victoriaville, also known as the cradle of sustainable development. In fact, most environmental initiatives originated in my community, my municipality. Victoriaville was the first town in Quebec to bring in a recycling program and an organic waste collection program. Big city folks often like to lecture us a bit, but the fact is that this started more than 20 years ago in our regions. We just got right to it instead of shooting our mouths off and talking big, like the Liberal Party unfortunately does.

The Liberals introduced a bill on attaining net-zero emissions by 2050 that has no targets, when they are not even capable of meeting the Paris targets by 2030. There was agreement on the 2030 targets. Those were the targets set by the Conservatives and copied by the Liberals.

After five years of Liberal government, it is clear that, year by year, Canada is drifting farther and farther away from those agreed-upon targets. The Liberal government would have us believe that everything will be fine in 2050, but it cannot even hit the 2030 targets. It is actually getting farther and farther away from them.

The Liberals have really changed their tune over time. When they first came to power, they scrapped the public transit tax credit. A few weeks ago, their minister announced supposedly historic investments in developing public transit in Canada. When will those investments be made? Starting in 2026. Those investments will be made not by the next government, but by the one after that.

The government is once again refusing to step up and bear the burden of making tough decisions for the good of our environment. It announced that it would plant two billion trees over the next 10 years, but none of its budgets have earmarked any money for this, and not a single tree has been planted yet. The Liberals make all the right promises, but they do not follow through in ways that show Canadians we are serious.

My colleagues in the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party can attest to the fact that two weeks ago, the Conservatives tabled a motion calling for Canada to stop exporting its waste abroad. We need to be responsible consumers. We need to take action to improve the situation, recycle and educate the public at the grassroots level, with the goal of reducing consumption.

Adding value to products is good, but consuming less would already be better for the environment. The only party that voted against this Conservative Party motion was the Liberal Party. The Liberals voted against the motion because it was the Conservative Party that introduced it. In the Liberals' minds, that meant it could not be a good idea. However, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Green Party and the independent members voted in favour of our motion.

The reality is that the Liberal Party talks a lot but does not deliver. We can see that, because the bill has no targets, no binding measures for the government. What the Liberals are doing is putting it off until later and setting up another committee of so-called experts. However, the reports are there, and we know what needs to be done. We need to invest in innovation and research and find new ways to replace our oil-based products. That is true, but we still need that oil.

Attacking our jobs, singling out certain provinces and fighting with one another is certainly not the way to reach the consensus needed to make these changes. We will not solve our problem by banning the development of our own domestic natural resources, which create jobs and generate financial resources to pay for our social programs, balance a budget—which is easy for the Liberals, since they think budgets balance themselves—or simply deliver services, nor by consuming the natural resources of other countries, as we are doing now.

This debate about our jobs versus the development of our natural resources is a red herring. Instead, we should be trying to achieve net-zero emissions. Even the big oil and auto companies have joined the net-zero movement already. They have officially stated that they want to work with the government. However, the government must be willing to work with those industries, rather than opposing them and always attacking them.

This means the government needs to stop burying its head in the sand and stop taking people for fools. People know they are still using oil but, in many cases, there is no alternative to this natural resource.

I believe that we are dealing with a government that has never followed through on its promises and that is all talk and no action. It must walk the talk, an expression that Canadians and Quebeckers are familiar with. The time has come for the Liberals to start taking action so that we can fight climate change together, both here in Canada and around the world. We know that we must do this, and we all want to be successful.

In any event, Canadians and Quebeckers recognize the importance of protecting our environment and our natural spaces. Our party and our leader agree on this. Our most recent environmental platform is proof positive of that, because it had some of the same planks as the Green Party. I can say that. This shows that we agree on several elements, and that is why we should all work together toward this goal.

The Conservative Party tackled acid rain. Earlier, I heard my Bloc Québécois colleague say how we managed to do it. It was thanks to Brain Mulroney's government and his global leadership that we put an end to acid rain. We all worked together on legislation that did not attack jobs, but that implemented intelligent measures and rallied everyone around the same cause. These changes were accomplished under a Conservative government, and it was also under a Conservative government that the protection of our national parks was set in motion. We can continue to implement these types of measures. We must work together and move forward.

As the former mayor of Victoriaville, I have personal experience with this issue. People do not want restrictive measures. To make changes, we never imposed restrictive measures that cost money. We worked on education, awareness and information. We worked with youth, who helped us convince older people to change their habits. We worked in a constructive manner rather than fighting, which is the federal government's approach with provincial premiers.

I also want to remind the Liberal government and our Prime Minister that we were elected by the same people. In many provinces, these people chose to elect Conservative premiers and governments. These people are also working hard, but they are grappling with concerns about the economy and employment. The government needs to stop treating these things as mutually exclusive.

I sometimes hear people get upset about oil and gas pipelines, but the fact remains that there are already plenty of them. Pipelines are one of the safest and most effective ways to transport our natural resources across the country. This generates income through jobs and enables us to have good programs. It also enables us to reinvest this money in the transition towards what are known as greener or cleaner energy sources, such as hydroelectricity.

Quebec is lucky in that respect, but that is not the case—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference, and I thought it was quite an amazing reference, that in essence, actions speak louder than words. He talked about not exporting garbage. In fact, that is the reality of what Stephen Harper did when he was the prime minister. He shipped containers of garbage through a private company to the Philippines. It became a political issue because the Harper regime was not able to deal with it, and we are the ones who cleaned up that mess that the Harper administration put us in. I would like to mention that comparison.

There has been a lot of confusion in terms of where the Conservatives are going to be on the price on pollution in the next election. We understand their current leader is having some second thoughts. Can he clearly indicate whether the Conservative Party supports a price on pollution?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am always surprised when Liberal members bring up decisions made by previous governments in very specific circumstances. When things go well, the current Liberal government takes all the credit, but when things go wrong, it always blames Mr. Harper and the former Conservative government.

The will is obviously there now, and the Liberal government had the opportunity two or three weeks ago to vote in favour of a bill introduced by the Conservative Party to stop Canada from exporting any more of our own garbage to other countries. I do not understand why my colleague wants to rake up stuff from six, seven or eight years ago, when we currently—

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

Order. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

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

Madam Speaker, what a great debate we are having today.

It is funny to hear my colleague say that we should not bring up long-ago governments when he himself talked about Brian Mulroney in 1988. I had to laugh a little when he said we should not talk about former governments.

Even so, my colleagues will be surprised to hear that I agree with my colleague. That is one for the history books: a Bloc MP agreeing with a Conservative about the environment. It is true, the Liberals have not kept their promises on the environment. We agree on that. Sadly, that is all we agree on.

During his speech, my colleague said something that resonated with me. He said we absolutely have to rely on research and development to replace petroleum products. I expect he had wood byproducts in mind, for one thing. In the same breath, he said that we cannot give up oil. The Conservatives are speaking out of both sides of their collective mouth. Unfortunately, they cannot get past that. Earlier today, some of them voted against Bill C-216 on supply management, and a minority of other MPs voted for it.

My question for my colleague is this: From 2006 to 2015, what did they do for the environment?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my colleague, but some of what he said was pure demagoguery.

When I referred to the former prime minister, it was to refute the argument so often used by our opponents that the Conservatives have never done anything for the environment. I am not suggesting that we should not look to the past in order to prepare for the future, but decisions are being made today. Certain decisions must be made, and some governments are not making them.

Yes, I said we should prepare for the future and invest in research and development, but I did not say that I was in favour nor did I praise oil to the skies. I do not drink oil, but I do drink milk and that makes me happy.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the trash issue, it is interesting that the Liberals have still not paid compensation to the Philippines and are negotiating loopholes with the U.S. that would still allow for trash to be sent to third world countries. That should go on the record.

My colleague talked about Conservatives and their position on the environment. I was in this House when Prime Minister Stephen Harper called climate change a socialist plot. The Conservatives pulled Canada out of the Kyoto accord. The Conservatives have consistently wanted to expand fossil fuel infrastructure, which we all know is one of the leading causes of carbon emissions, and we are going to have to contain it if we want a serious chance of dealing with climate change.

How does he respond to the Conservatives' terrible record on climate change?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am astounded. I feel like I am listening to a Liberal member dredge up Stephen Harper once again in a discussion we are having in 2021, when we are all trying to work together.

It was under a Conservative government that greenhouse gases were reduced. The statistics are there. They can be found on the Government of Canada website. Right now emissions are increasing—

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

The hon. member for Saskatoon West.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to this issue in the House and I want to start by going back through a bit of history. I want to go back to the eighties, when I was growing up.

In the eighties, the big issue was the ozone layer. There was talk about the fact that it was thinning, that there were holes in it and that the sun's rays were causing damage. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney got together with some other countries. He brought 24 countries together, and they were able create the Montreal protocol in 1987. That put the wheels in motion to solve this problem. He worked with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and now, if we look at the Government of Canada website, we see that ozone-depleting substances are decreasing and that it says ozone will be back to its normal state by 2050.

Around the same time, acid rain was another problem. There was literally acid falling from the sky. It was causing health problems and it was also causing problems with vegetation. Again Brian Mulroney was able to work with the U.S. president, and they made an air quality agreement that reduced the pollution that causes acid rain. Today we do not hear anything about acid rain because that problem has been solved.

During the time from Mulroney through to Prime Minister Harper, there were 10 different national parks created, including the Rouge River park in Toronto, and in 2015, Prime Minister Stephen Harper set the greenhouse gas reduction target to 30% below the 2005 levels by 2030. The common thread in all of these environmental successes is Conservative leadership. In 2006, in fact, Corporate Knights magazine named Brian Mulroney the greenest prime minister ever.

Of course, today Mr. Harper's targets have not been achieved by the Liberals. Even though they have been running the country for five years, they have not been able to move toward that. They are still many, many points away from hitting the targets that were set back then, so I will take no lessons from the Liberal government on environmental issues. They can brag about things when they have actually accomplished something for the environment.

What we need to hear is a made-in-Canada solution. I am a tall person, and that means I am good at certain things and not so good at some other things. For example, when a light bulb needs to be changed in our house, I am good at that. My wife is a shorter person, and when she needs something off the top shelf, I am very good at that. The point is that we all have strengths and we all have weaknesses, and that is true for countries also. Countries have strengths and countries have weaknesses.

What we always tell our kids is that they cannot become something that they are not. We have to be proud of who we are and use the skills and talents that we have to contribute to the world. For Canada it is a challenge, because we have higher greenhouse gas output per capita than lots of other countries, but there are reasons for that. Canada is a very big country. When a truck needs to move from Saskatoon to Nova Scotia, it is a long distance. There is a lot of energy required to do that. Flying across our country takes a lot of energy.

Canada is cold. We have to heat our homes. If we do not heat our homes, people will literally die, so it is something that we just have to do. We also produce lots of resources and lots of food, and those are very energy-intensive industries. It requires a lot of energy to produce those things, so we should not feel bad about that. It is who we are, and we should be proud of that. We should find ways—and we do find ways all the time—to utilize the skills that we have to make the world a better place.

This also translates into strengths. Our resource sector is a huge strength, and we can use those strengths to help the world. We all know that Canada has significant quantities of resources, all the different types of minerals, forestry and agricultural resources. We have lots of quantity that we can help the world with. We also have the best ethical and human rights records and laws in the world. We have the highest labour standards anywhere. We also have very high environmental standards. All of these things make our Canadian resources the best in the world.

We also used to have a very stable market-based economy, and once the Conservatives come back into power, we will make sure that we get back to that stable market-based economy that Canada is so used to.

We have a lot of technology to offer the world. We have carbon capture and storage. In my home province, that is a skill we have developed, and we lead the world in it. Canada leads the world in nuclear power. We have all kinds of advances in the agriculture sector. I worked at a company for many years that perfected zero tillage, which is a way of farming that uses less resources and keeps more carbon in the ground, making agriculture more efficient.

These are things that we have not only developed in Canada, but we have exported all around the world to help others in deal with that.

Of course, our oil and gas industry produces significant finances for our country. We are the fourth-largest producer in the world, we employ hundreds of thousands of people and billions of dollars come back to our economy and to our governments through the oil and gas industry. The challenge is to preserve our environment without sacrificing the jobs and our economy.

I like the proposed legislation, Bill C-12. The reason I like it is that it is a made-in-Canada solution to greenhouse emissions. It is far better than a carbon tax, in my view. The carbon tax penalizes farmers, business owners and people who are heating their homes. All of these people get penalized through a carbon tax. The carbon tax does not reduce demand unless the amount of the tax goes way up. Of course, we know that the government is planning to increase it to $170 a tonne, but that is not enough to make a significant difference in the consumption.

The carbon tax is based on a fundamental assumption that there are one of two possible outcomes. The first outcome is that things stay status quo, greenhouse gases continue to rise and that causes trouble in our environment. The other outcome is that we have to make drastic changes to our lifestyle. We have to turn our thermostat temperature down from 21° down to 15°. We have to get rid of anything that uses fuel. We have to make drastic changes in our lifestyle. It looks as though those are the two options we have.

However, I would suggest there there is a third option. Canadians are very resilient, creative and smart, and I have a couple of examples that I want to share.

In Saskatchewan, there is a company called Gibson Energy. This company recently expanded its production capacity by 25% with a zero increase in greenhouse gases that go with it. This company found a way to increase production, yet keep greenhouse gases the same.

Right next door to my province, in Alberta, there is another company called Enhance Energy. It captures carbon from the Sturgeon Refinery and the Nutrien fertilizer facility and transports that carbon and sequesters it underground in old wells. So far, in less than 10 years, it has sequestered carbon equivalent to taking 350,000 cars off the road. This is a significant improvement and accomplishment.

What is even better is that we can take this technology and this knowledge that we have and export it around the world. We have our portion of greenhouse gases that we can affect in Canada, but if we can take our technology and leverage it by sending it around the world, we could punch above our weight. We could actually reduce greenhouse gases and help the rest of the world, which would achieve an even better result than just what we could on our own.

We can have a significant impact in the world and we can punch above our weight, and that is what Canadians do. Canadians are resilient and very smart, Canadian companies are very creative and that is where we can really make a significant difference.

As I conclude, I want to come back to a question I get a lot, which is, what would the Conservatives do?

There are two things we would do for sure. First, we would get rid of the inefficient, economic-killing carbon tax. Second, we would instead focus on made-in-Canada solutions like the Gibson Energy and Enhance Energy examples. We would allow Canadians to innovate, to be creative and to make a real, significant difference, not just in Canada but all over the world. As we export these ideas and share them with the world, we will also make the world an overall better place and help everyone reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard two Conservative members talk about Brian Mulroney. However, that is not the Conservative Party of Brian Mulroney. It is a conglomerate of the old Reform and Alliance Parties. If that Conservative Party had half the interest in doing something about climate change and global warming that Brian Mulroney did, it would be light years ahead.

I will read what Brian Mulroney said as recently as 2019 in an article in the National Post. He said.

As difficult as the process may be to arrest and to mitigate the effects of global warming, the work cannot be left to the next fellow. The stakes are too high, the risks to our planet and the human species too grave.

I would be hard pressed to get half the members of the Conservative Party to utter the words “global warming” in the context that it actually exists.

Does the member really believe that the current Conservative Party is the same as the old Progressive Conservative Party of Brian Mulroney and members of Parliament like Flora MacDonald, who came from my riding?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the member refers to not leaving things to the future. When I look at the legislation before us, when does it start? When is the first review? When are the first requirements required? Are they even going to be impacted by the member opposite? Is he even going to still be in the House?

If we look at the legislation, those requirements are way in the future. There probably will be two or three more prime ministers by the time the House has to even deal with the consequences of that. I do not have a whole lot of faith or warm feelings coming from that.

The Liberal government has done exactly that by punting this far into the future so it will never have to deal with it.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to the day when we can have debates where members are not perpetually campaigning, or trying to lay blame on others, or point to who did this and who did that. Let us be constructive. Let us talk about the bill.

In his speech, the member said that we generate a lot of greenhouse gas emissions because we are a big country and we should not feel bad about it. This is not about feeling bad. It is about reducing those emissions. He seems to be saying that every country has strengths and that it is not our fault if we create more pollution than other countries. I hope I misunderstood that part of the debate.

There has been a lot of talk about oil. However, the world is unanimous. Even investment companies are pulling out of oil.

Some may not like it, but that is what is happening. This is no longer the time to be in oil.

Does the member not agree that we should not start any new oil projects and that, rather than insisting on doing so, we should start a new transition?

Of course, that transition will take place by helping—

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

The hon. member for Saskatoon West for a brief response.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to clarify my remarks. In no way am I saying that we should not be trying to reduce greenhouse gases. I am just saying that we have to look at it a little differently. We cannot compare ourselves to Bermuda, or India or wherever. We need to create a made-in-Canada solution that not only reduces greenhouse gases, but is able to help the world.

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

It being 6:52 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from March 10 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.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill.

One thing is very clear. Climate change is truly the greatest challenge of this century, if not this millennium. The Bloc Québécois examined this bill carefully, and we support it in principle simply because we cannot be against doing the right thing. However, we think that the bill needs improvement. We need to give it some teeth.

Like most environmental protection agencies, the Bloc Québécois was pleased that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change introduced this long-awaited bill.

However, we are somewhat disappointed with how weak it is in its current form. The overall goal of climate legislation should be to make current and future governments responsible for their climate action in order to prevent a perpetual failure to reduce emissions. Targets were set a long time ago, but unfortunately, we sometimes see them being changed along the way. Changes have been made several times over the past 30 years, leading us to believe that we had lowered our emissions when they had actually increased compared to when we first started setting targets.

Unlike Bill C-215, an act respecting Canada’s fulfillment of its greenhouse gas emissions reduction obligations, which was introduced in the House by the Bloc Québécois, Bill C-12 as drafted will not help achieve that objective.

Major changes would be needed for Bill C-12 to have any real impact on ensuring that Canada fulfills its obligations under the Paris Agreement. Also, unlike the Bloc Québécois bill, this bill does nothing to enshrine the Paris Agreement into Canadian law, even though it ought to be. The fact that the Paris targets are not even included in Bill C-12 only confirms that Canada is not serious about its commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050.

Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois believes that the bill should include a binding target of a 30% reduction below Canada's 2005 levels by 2030. The bill should also set an interim target for 2025.

Also, one of the major problems with Bill C-12 is that it does not set out any credible accountability mechanisms for reductions. The only obligation that Bill C-12 imposes on the minister is to prepare a report. Ultimately, the minister will get to assess his own progress and share his findings with the public. Under Bill C-12, the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is almost non-existent, when the commissioner actually needs a bigger operating budget.

The government should enlist neutral, objective, independent institutions and authorities to ensure that these measures really have teeth and to hold the minister to account. Under the bill as it stands now, the minister is accountable only to himself. That is why we also think that there should be an action plan and that the measures taken by the government should be examined by this authority—

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

I am sorry, but we have to move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I am very disappointed in this bill. Other countries, such as England and New Zealand, have much stronger legislation. They passed bills with hard-hitting measures that will truly tackle the perils of climate change.

Bill C-12 is the weakest bill in the world.

What does my Bloc Québécois colleague think about the fact that the Minister of the Environment did not compare existing laws elsewhere in the world to come up with measures that work?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I believe that—

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

Yes, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot did indeed have time left. I am very sorry.

The member has another six minutes for his speech if he wants. Then we will come back to the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot once more.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, certainly, I will gladly pick up where I left off. I was a little surprised by the interruption, as I did not think we were there yet.

Bill C-12 needs to include an action plan, measures and a review by an independent body that will assess whether the targets are being met and whether Canada is fulfilling its obligations under the Paris Agreement. The bill is missing that aspect. The Paris Agreement is more than just a declaration of intent. As we have said before, the government needs to walk the talk. It needs to listen to the major environmental groups, which have all pointed out the significant flaws with Bill C-12.

That is what the Green Party member pointed out in her question when she said that this bill is one of the weakest in the world, which is is true, unfortunately.

The best approach would be to take inspiration from Bill C-215, the bill on climate change accountability that was introduced by the Bloc Québécois. Our bill set out binding reduction targets and introduced real accountability mechanisms, and that is what really matters.

The goal of Bill C-12 is not to ensure that Canada fulfills its international commitments, but rather to enshrine into law the existence of a target to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. However, the Paris Agreement is quite clear. In order to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, the middle of this century, we must first cap greenhouse gas emissions around the world as soon as possible.

The purpose of any climate legislation is not to support the government's efforts—which is exactly how this bill is being presented—but rather to force the government to fulfill its commitments and keep it from failing again.

At the beginning of the House debate on Bill C-215, I remember being told that we needed to preserve policy space. However, since a bill can be repealed, policy space does not disappear. Of course, it is much more difficult to repeal legislation than it is to just leave policy space, as the current bill does. Still, I think it is only right for a government that wants to adjust its actual greenhouse gas emission targets downward to be required to follow a much more rigorous process, rather than being able to make such changes lightly.

With our Bill C-215, we wanted the interim emissions reduction target for 2030 to be a reduction of at least 30% below the level of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions in 2005, which is consistent with the Paris Agreement. In comparison, the Liberal Party's Bill C-12 states that the minister will set the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2030 within six months of the day on which the act comes into force. The bill does not actually contain any binding reduction targets. It merely states that it will be up to the minister to announce the new targets.

In the throne speech, the government states that it will bring forward a plan to exceed Canada's 2030 climate goal, and the Prime Minister keeps saying that it will be exceeded. If the government is so sure that it will exceed its reduction target for 2030, why did it not include it in the bill? If the government is so confident, I think it should have nothing to fear from including the targets in the bill. Even if it has concerns about not being able to meet the targets, they should still be written into law.

There is also a problem with the reports. According to the bill, the minister must set targets for the milestone years, but these years are not specified. The targets are established one by one over time, five years before the milestone year. The first target, which should be the one for 2035, will be set in 2030. One question we could ask ourselves is the following: If the progress report is already evaluating whether the interim targets are being met, why would the assessment not be done on an annual basis, after the national inventory report is submitted in accordance with the United Nations framework convention?

In my introduction earlier, I spoke about the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. The bill does not expressly state that the measures must be assessed based on Canada's ability to adhere to the Paris Agreement. However, for the law to truly ensure that the government's actions enable Canada to meet its targets and honour its international commitments, the commissioner's role must be to assess whether the planned measures will allow Canada to meet its targets and how meeting them would enable Canada to honour its obligations under the Paris Agreement.

In addition, Parliament needs to be able to ensure that the government is honouring Canada's international commitments. The legislation must include a mandatory target for 2030. If the Liberal government's good faith were a valid and satisfactory guarantee of Canada's climate success, why would we need climate framework legislation? This is a valid question.

The government cannot say that Bill C-12 contains restrictive measures while at the same time saying that the only real restriction is the outcome of the election. The Bloc Québécois is fully prepared to work with the government, the opposition parties, environmental groups and the public to amend Bill C-12 to ensure that Canada's international climate commitments will actually be honoured.

However, it is a problem that the minister is the one who establishes the body's mandate and that the minister can change this mandate at any time. As the bill stands now, the advisory body is restricted to providing advice with respect to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The fact that experts are not being asked to provide advice on the short-term targets, the interim targets and the 2030 target is yet another example of how the government does not understand that this is a climate emergency. It is not prioritizing the rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

We now move to questions and comments. I would ask the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to repeat her question.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple and clear.

What is being proposed in Bill C-12 will result in Canada having the weakest law in the world with respect to the government's responsibility to tackle the great threat of the climate emergency.

Other countries have laws. For example, England passed a very strict law in 2008, which resulted in greenhouse gas reductions. Every year, England meets its targets while Canada fails to do so.

In my colleagues's opinion, why did the minister not study the stricter legislation of other countries?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at their recent convention, the Liberals voted against the proposal of their party's Quebec wing to promote green energy and to put an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Despite all the good intentions and fine speeches, the Liberal Party rejected this proposal.

We cannot transition to clean energy while increasing fossil fuel subsidies, as is currently happening. Unfortunately, Canadian governments, no matter which ones, often only pay lip service. As the member said so well, we have not really studied what is being done well elsewhere.

Let us now hope that the detailed study in committee will amend and improve the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my question is in regard to the importance of the national government working with provincial and territorial governments and other stakeholders to further the cause. As we talk about the legislation for net-zero emissions, I think it is very robust and ambitious, and it will meet the needs and expectations that Canadians have of the government.

Would the member not agree that, if Ottawa is working in co-operation with other jurisdictions in different areas, we will be better able to achieve the types of goals Canadians want us to achieve?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we completely agree that Ottawa must work with Quebec, the provinces and the different levels of government. That is not the issue, and promoting this collaboration is part of our DNA.

We really want environmental matters to be an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec. In my view, collaborating with the provinces means, for example, not imposing an oil project when the provinces do not want it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of my hon. colleague. I agree with so much that he presented around ways to strengthen this accountability legislation.

I wonder if he could provide the House with a change that he feels would go the furthest and would be the highest priority amendment to this legislation to improve accountability and strengthen the bill. Is there one idea that he feels stands out?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that most of the useful ideas can be found in the bill that the Bloc Québécois introduced, such as the need for real accountability, a recognized monitoring and oversight body, and 2030 targets.

In other words, we cannot simply rely on good intentions and let the minister assess his own performance. We need an independent oversight body and we need much more binding targets.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are times when we are called on to do big, hard, important things. I believe tackling the climate crisis is one of those things, and I know many in this place agree.

It is such an important thing that I feel both compelled to speak and afraid that my words will not measure up to the hopes of my daughters’ generation, rather, that they will be added to the decades-long soundtrack of political platitudes, which, taken all together, have added up to so little. I first became concerned about climate change as a teenager; now I have teenagers of my own, and yet so little progress has been made.

Today we are debating Bill C-12, Canada’s much-awaited climate accountability legislation. I would like to focus my remarks on a gaping hole it contains, which is the lack of any climate targets until 2030, at the very end of the decade that we know will be the most critical in turning things around. In some ways, the once slow-moving train wreck of climate change would seem the perfect candidate for incrementalism. If we had acted in a measured and determined fashion decades ago, making modest but significant reductions each and every year, we would be in a very different place right now, but of course we did not.

In 2004, Rick Mercer merrily called on Canadians to commit to the one-tonne challenge. Canada’s emissions back then were 742 million tonnes. Fifteen years later, in the inventory just released for 2019, they were 730 million tonnes, only 1.6% lower. Along the way, we made all sorts of commitments, in 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2010, and we fulfilled none of them.

It is startling that the Minister of Environment was quoted as saying recently that it was “really good news” that Canada’s emissions went up by one megatonne. I am all for positive vibes and sunny ways, but on what planet is it “really good news” when things the government said it would make go down go up instead?

The government has adopted Stephen Harper’s 2030 target of reducing emissions by 30% compared to 2005 levels, and has promised to raise this ambition in line with the Paris accord. This is well and good, because we know we need to do more than 30% if we are going to do our part in avoiding the worst ravages of climate change.

However, a lot of Canadians would appreciate a government that gives them the unvarnished truth, that we have been losing badly. We have blown through every single climate target we have set as a country and, like a kid who puts off studying until the night before the exam, the timeline has collapsed on us. We are very nearly out of time altogether. We can no longer claim with a straight face that modest incrementalism is going to get us to where we need to be within the time still left on the clock.

As the IPCC has stated, this decade matters most. In each and every year leading up to 2030, we need to make progress that is not just measurable, but indeed quite dramatic.

Given this dire situation, this climate emergency, I cannot understand why the government is so resistant to the idea of telling the public about where it plans for Canada to be, where we need to be, in 2025. Why would it resist such basic transparency?

The minister stated in the media that he is confident Canada is on track to achieve year-over-year emissions reductions from here onward. Yet every year since the government came to power, emissions have gone up, and every year the minister has claimed we are on track. It begs the question what the phrase “on track” even means.

The analogy that comes to mind is that of training for a marathon. There are certain milestones one needs to reach along the way. If the race is in two weeks and people are not yet running 10 kilometres comfortably, they are certainly not going to be ready for 42 kilometres. Canada’s government has paid the entry fee and jogged to the start line of many climate races, but we do not train and we do not finish. We just commit to running new races and jog up to the start line, again and again, high-fiving our friends and smiling for the cameras. Worse yet, these past six years we have taken to bragging that we are going to run with the best of them, but our actions, our results, have yet to add up to any of our ambitions.

This is a race we cannot lose. We need a different approach, and that is exactly what the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party are calling for, an approach that is transparent, honest, collaborative: what my late friend Bruce Hill once called a “show, don’t tell” approach.

Of course, a near-term milestone puts our policy choices into stark focus. There is much less room for contradictions, trade-offs or half measures, and no time for clichés about the environment and the economy going hand in hand. It means the decision-makers around the table today are likely to be the same people held accountable in just four years’ time.

In addition to targets, we also need to strengthen Bill C-12's enforcement mechanisms to ensure real accountability. The bill tasks the Environment Commissioner with assessing progress, but we know that office does not even have adequate resources for its current mandate. The arm’s-length advisory committee needs to be given an active role in setting targets and reviewing progress. We are ready to work constructively with the government to improve this bill and give real teeth to independent, empowered bodies that can enforce the government’s targets. It is the kind of approach that worked for the U.K.

The U.K. climate change act is seen as the gold standard of climate accountability. Central to the U.K. approach are five-year carbon budgets. These are legally binding with regular reporting to Parliament. The first five-year carbon budget covering the period of 2008 to 2012 was not enacted until 2009, yet the country met that milestone with room to spare. It exceeded its second carbon budget too, and today is well on its way to meeting its third. The U.K.’s arm's-length advisory body, the committee on climate change, helps set targets and publicly reports on whether those targets are being met. Since 1990, the U.K.'s emissions have fallen 44%. The Brits are not just finishing the race: They are on the podium. It feels funny describing all this because, of course, the government is perfectly familiar with the U.K. example, yet it has tabled a bill that falls far short.

It is not that there are not aspects of Bill C-12 that we support. For the first time, the government is codifying the basic principle of accountability on the climate. Targets will be enshrined into law, and the government acknowledges that we must limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C. Although the language could be much stronger, it is positive to see reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. However, this bill’s basic purpose is to ensure we hit our 2030 and 2050 targets. In that regard, the lack of a near-term milestone and stronger enforcement mechanisms are glaring flaws.

Canadians elected not just a minority parliament, but a minority in which over 60% of MPs elected belong to parties that prioritize climate action. The promise of a minority is that we will work together in the spirit of collaboration to strengthen legislation and serve our country in the best way possible. With the NDP, Bloc and Greens all calling for the same basic amendments to Bill C-12, this is the Liberals’ opportunity to show they can lead alongside others.

Who knows? With the Leader of the Opposition’s recent revelation that carbon pricing is a thing, even in a weird way that rewards people who burn more fossil fuels, we may yet see the Conservatives graduate from climate curious to climate sincere. First he will have to convince his party that climate change is real, but hope springs eternal. Imagine a House united against this common threat, as it has been only a few times in our history. If there is a challenge worthy of such unity, the climate crisis is that challenge. Let us show Canadians we are equal to it.

In closing, I was reminded recently that my predecessor, the inimitable Jim Fulton, stood in the House 30 years ago and called delay on climate action “a crime no future generation would forgive.” He was right, and we have delayed far too long. Let us improve this bill, hold our government to account and maybe we can get things pointed in the right direction at long last.

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

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned two people I also love who left us too soon: Bruce Hill and Jim Fulton. In reference to him thinking about his own children and being interested in climate as a teenager, I held my daughter, not yet one year old, while I watched the signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio in 1992. Since that time, humanity has emitted more greenhouse gases than in the entire period between the beginning of the industrial revolution and when we committed to start reducing greenhouse gases to avoid the emergency we are now in.

My concern is that Bill C-12, as drafted, is actually dangerous because it deludes us into thinking that a 2050 target of net-zero will keep us from blowing past what we committed to do in Paris, which was to hold the global average temperature to as far below 2°C as possible and preferably to 1.5°C. There is a carbon budget.

Will the hon. member—

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

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley will have an opportunity to comment.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not disagree with anything that my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands has said. The challenge in front of us is to take what we have been presented and to work as hard as we can to make it better, to have the courage to work together, to hold each other to account and to try to come out with something that is better than what we have had for the past 30 or 40 years. That is a challenge that I certainly hope we are equal to.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand the member supports this bill, but I just want to raise an issue that I discovered in researching this bill. In the past, many people have criticized the Harper Conservatives for being too cozy with special interests, giving them too much play in being involved in legislation. However, I found an article in the Financial Post this week that basically stated, “Jonathan Wilkinson could almost be accused of plagiarism”, with respect to copying a document that was put out by a variety of—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member knows that we do not use members' proper names in the chamber.

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

I thank the member for pointing it out, and it is absolutely a reminder that we do not use the names of members or ministers in the House.

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

That is correct, Madam Speaker. I am sorry. I was quoting, but I will move on.

I just want to point out that the government has provided funding to some of these organizations: $1.7 million in federal grants to the Pembina Institute, $200,000 to—

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

I will give the opportunity for the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley to answer, and we are running out of time.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Madam Speaker, to answer very briefly, standing up for the environment is not a special interest.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

We are debating Bill C-12 today. Although the bill has merit, many of us feel that it lacks teeth.

There has been talk about the bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, which may be unenforceable. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP have introduced their own bills on climate accountability.

What does my colleague think is an essential characteristic of a good law on environmental responsibility?

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

Madam Speaker, the essential characteristic of a good law on environmental responsibility, and in particular accountability, which is the focus of this discussion, is that it produces results and empowers independent bodies, just as we have officers of Parliament who hold us to account, to cut through the doublespeak and the spin of successive governments and give Canadians the unvarnished truth about where we are at and where we need to be.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like the member to comment specifically on the fact that this bill would create an advisory mechanism and that there was an expectation when this bill started to be debated that there would be some consultation and some broad representation in terms of that advisory mechanism. More recently, we found out that the government has already identified the individuals who will sit on that advisory body, even before the legislation is passed, even before it has gone to committee.

I wonder if the member thinks that this is a mistake for the government and the Liberals should be consulting with members of the opposition and trying to have a broad consensus reflected and different experience and knowledge reflected in that advisory mechanism to represent all parts of Canadian society.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that the purpose of the advisory committee should be to represent all of the broad diversity of Canadian society. It should be an advisory committee of experts who recognize the imperative of action on climate change and who are positioned to provide expert advice to the government. The risk is—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, the government has said from the beginning of the pandemic that we will have Canadians' backs, and that is what we are doing, yet as we continue to fight COVID-19 and have a plan for the Canadian economy, the planet remains in crisis, and we must act.

I am going to try to keep my remarks short. I know some members may not believe that, but it will be in the form of a plea to hon. members. I am asking members to allow Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, to move on to the next stage of the legislative process.

Last December, we announced Canada's strengthened climate plan for a healthy environment and a healthy economy. With this plan, we will achieve our environmental and economic goals and exceed Canada's current 2030 climate target. The net-zero bill is a fundamental part of this plan. “Net-zero” is not a flashy catchphrase. If we do not reach net-zero emissions by 2050, we will not achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. This is an existential threat to the planet on which there is a global consensus.

There is also consensus here at home, where the vast majority of Canadians voted for climate action in the last election. Just last week, five environmental organizations issued a press release calling on all parties to advance this bill. Canadians want us to move forward because Bill C-12 will bring accountability and transparency to Canada's climate commitments. It will offer people and businesses certainty as we transition to a cleaner future.

Since the introduction in the House of Commons, members have debated the bill three times. Despite delays caused by procedural manoeuvres, during these debates each party indicated its support for the principles of the bill and agreed that it should be referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I will give some examples.

The Conservative environment and climate change critic, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, stated, “It may raise some eyebrows that my party will be supporting this bill at second reading, but if we are going to have any success, we need to find those things that we can agree upon and take action. There are things we can and must agree on.... In summary, I see very little in this bill to oppose.”

The Bloc Québécois environment critic stated, “Given the importance of the issue it addresses, although we agree with the principle, we feel Bill C-12 needs some work. Members can count on the Bloc Québécois to propose improvements.... Once amended, this bill will be crucial for the future.”

The NDP critic for the environment and climate change, the member for Victoria, stated, “I will be pushing the government to make this bill stronger. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We are running out of time. Young people and Canadians are watching us, and they will not forgive us if we fail them, if we lack the courage do what is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. They are telling us to wake up.”

The Conservative finance critic, the member for Abbotsford, stated, “Conservatives in the House support this legislation.” The member for Saskatoon West stated, “I like the proposed legislation, Bill C-12. The reason I like it is that it is a made-in-Canada solution to greenhouse gas emissions.” The Bloc Québécois climate change critic, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, stated, “the climate crisis must not be a partisan issue. That said, I am very much looking forward to studying this bill in committee. I do have reservations, but climate legislation is crucial.”

The Bloc member for Saint-Jean stated, “In recent months, governments, cities and universities in Quebec and Canada have declared a climate emergency. This is not the time to procrastinate. As the saying goes, never leave for tomorrow what you can do today.” The NDP member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay stated, “We will support this bill at second reading, but the Liberals must work with us to strengthen the accountability provisions”.

When the minister participated in the debate, he emphasized that our climate goals are shared objectives that require collaboration. We believe strongly in the integrity and spirit of the parliamentary process and remain committed to considering in good faith constructive amendments to improve the legislation.

We know that, in addition to those put forward by the members of the Liberal caucus, the environment and climate change critics of both the Bloc and the NDP have put forward proposals to strengthen the bill, and we are diligently reviewing those proposals. If we all agree, let us move forward and conclude debate today. Members should vote on the bill so it can be amended at committee. Amendments can be brought forward from members of Parliament and civil society that can be considered and debate can continue. I know I am new to the environment committee, but there are some exceptional members on all sides who we look forward to working with.

However, if the debate fails to conclude, I would ask that members consider supporting the government in using parliamentary tools that are available to ensure there is a second reading vote very soon. Political leaders who support climate action should not stand idly by while it is delayed. This is not the time to procrastinate. We have responsibility to all Canadians and to future generations to act now.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, all parliamentarians here agree that we need to tackle climate change and do what is necessary for the environment.

How can my colleague assure Canadians that the Liberal government's plans will get results? From what we are seeing here today, this bill will delay initial results for the length of two majority mandates plus one year, for a total of nine years. I would like to hear my colleague's views on that.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member's statement. It has taken nine years, but we have flattened the curve on pollution. The reports that have been released show that we are moving in the right direction. The member's party said it supports the bill, and we look forward to further amendments. We want to work with the opposition to strengthen this bill, and we look forward to it. We hope the debate concludes today, so the real work on amending the bill can begin in earnest, rather than stalling it here in the chamber.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we welcome this bill. It is a step in the right direction, but it simply does not go far enough to ensure that we are doing everything we can to address the climate crisis.

When the Prime Minister was asked why there was no target for 2025, he did not even answer the question. He talked about how, ultimately, the accountability for the government's actions or inaction comes from Canadians themselves.

Canadians are saying the Liberals have missed every single climate target they have set, and they want the government to come up with a credible plan. They want a 2025 milestone to start with, so we can make sure we are monitoring where we are and measuring it. Will the member accept our proposal to have a milestone target for 2025?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, we look forward to amendments being brought, but I take exception with the member's claims about our climate plan. I know the hon. member will not believe me, so I will reference his former leader Thomas Mulcair, who called our climate plan absolutely marvellous, saying it put Canada on track to respect our Paris accord obligations. He went on to say that our Prime Minister had published a very bold, all-encompassing and frankly brilliant climate plan. We agree.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary. We serve on the environment committee together. We are very excited to be able to get to this study and talk about amendments. In the meantime, as we look at the accountability aspect, I was so glad to see the word “accountability” right in the title of the legislation.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell us how accountability interacts with the work the Auditor General's office and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development would be doing to make sure the bill, and the audit of the bill, would show that we are making progress on our targets?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Guelph for his passion on climate change, which has been evident since we both got elected in 2015. It has been a pleasure to serve with him on the environment committee these past few weeks.

Accountability is already in the legislation. The hon. member is correct in pointing out the role of the Auditor General, and we are fully willing to strengthen that. We are willing to work with opposition parties. We are willing to see amendments.

This is vitally important. All members keep talking about how vitally important it is, but all that is serving to do is delay this legislation. Canadians want to see us debate this. There will be further time for debate at committee stage, report stage and third reading, but let us get it to committee so we can get the real work done and evaluate amendments as they come forward.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, we see this often, when Liberal members get up in the House during debate, taking House time, to say we should speed it up to pass the bill, seemingly unaware that, when they stand up to speak to a bill in the House, they are consuming time and reducing the chances of the bill passing in the timeline they propose.

If the member wants the bill to pass in a certain timeframe, will he look in the mirror and consider his own culpability by choosing to give a speech today?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is why I gave a very brief speech, to get this through as quickly as possible.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and emotion that I rise today to talk about the environment. I do so with thoughts of my children and my granddaughter, who will be celebrating her first birthday in three weeks.

There are different ways of achieving our common goal of combatting climate change. Climate change is real, and we need to face that reality by taking positive, long-term measures that will make a real difference. Here is why we have concerns about Bill C-12.

Yesterday, our party and the hon. Leader of the Opposition and member for Durham tabled a concrete, realistic and responsible environmental action plan that will produce tangible results. It is a bold, innovative plan that appeals directly to Canadians to address and combat climate change.

The key component of the environmental plan that we tabled yesterday is the creation of a personal savings account. We recognize that carbon pricing is a reality and that we need to put a price on carbon. However, in contrast to the current approach, which involves a government-managed carbon tax, we, the Conservatives, want to give that responsibility to Canadians.

When someone makes a purchase with a carbon footprint, the carbon footprint charge will be printed in black and white on the bill. That amount will then be immediately transferred to a savings account. The Canadian consumer could then use that money to make purchases of their choice with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We are starting from the premise that when one action is taken, another action will directly follow to offset the first action.

We believe that Canadians are in the best position to know what they need and how they can take action to combat carbon pollution. Instead of leaving this in the hands of the government, we are putting it in the hands of citizens.

We know that this is an innovative approach, and that is good because we need to innovate, think outside the box and get off the beaten path to deal with this problem properly. Adapting to this approach will be a real challenge, but that is exactly what we need to do. However, we want to do it with the help and participation of the provinces. We are not saying that here, in Ottawa, we know what is best and we will enforce that. We will work with the provinces to enable citizens to make the choices that they think are best, since Canadians themselves are the ones who know what is best for them and what is best for reducing their environmental footprint.

For example, someone could buy an electric bicycle, do renovations on their house by replacing their windows with energy-efficient ones, or buy a bus pass to avoid driving their car and therefore reduce their carbon footprint. These are positive, constructive, realistic and responsible initiatives that empower the individual.

That is not all. We go much further. We have a zero emission vehicle plan, which is especially great for Quebeckers. As everyone knows, Quebec has a lot of expertise in that area. Over in Saint-Jérôme, Lion Electric is making electric buses that are sold across North America, which is great. We will support the sector by investing $1 billion in building our electric vehicle manufacturing and developing affordable battery technology.

I have no personal connection to Saint-Jérôme, but it is well known that Saint-Jérôme is a hotspot for electric vehicle know-how. Saint-Jérôme CEGEP students can even earn an attestation of collegial studies in electric vehicle technology. This is a place where people are focused on the future and invest in training. We will put $1 billion into supporting this.

The same goes for our targets. We are inspired by British Columbia, which wants 30% of vehicles sold there to be electric by 2030. British Columbia is on its way, and we are following in its footsteps. Major auto industry players such as Ford and GM are following suit and have similar objectives. As our leader said recently, the world has changed, Canada has changed, and we have to head in that direction. This is how we will do it.

We also want to reduce industrial gas emissions. That will not happen overnight because we know that major polluters pollute more because of their philosophy and the fact that they have to produce so much. Our approach is to work with major polluters to reduce their gas emissions.

We also want to establish North American standards. I say this because we could set extremely strict standards in Canada, but if we do not do so in partnership with the Americans, in particular, we would of course be left with our hands tied behind our backs, as it would make our businesses less competitive globally. We therefore have to work with the Americans and come up with North American standards for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in various industries. That would be the realistic, responsible and correct approach to take, one that would not hurt Canada's economy, but on the contrary, would create some important opportunities.

We also want to develop a carbon capture credit. This technology exists in Canada, particularly in central Canada, in Saskatchewan and Manitoba for example. It is already highly developed, and it is constantly being improved. If Canadians were to put their faith in us in the next election, our government would make that a priority, with a $5-billion program to build that carbon capture capacity and innovation even further.

I know a little bit about this because a business in my riding, CO₂ Solutions, had also developed this as a way to take action and reduce pollution through carbon capture. When carbon is emitted, it is immediately sequestered underground so it cannot damage the environment. These are positive, constructive and truly realistic approaches. Someone can have 100,000 crazy ideas, but they will not necessarily be feasible. We, on the other hand, have concrete and realistic solutions, and we are reaching out to the provinces and to businesses. Most importantly, we are putting measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the hands of Canadians.

However, we must recognize that with respect to Bill C-12, which we are debating today, something changed between the time the government introduced the bill and now. The government decided to create an advisory group and invite only people of its choosing to develop certain policies and ideas. If it is going to open the debate, it must open it to everyone. The government cannot choose only the people who will go along with it and then make us live with the potentially serious consequences of the decisions made. That is why we have very serious reservations. In fact, we think it is unacceptable. What the government did when the debate began was to introduce a new measure that literally no one saw coming.

Therefore, I would like to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

“the House decline to give second reading 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, since the Bill fails to:

A. implement a plan that recognizes climate change is real and addresses the significant problem it represents, while also ensuring that economic development and job growth can flourish all across Canada; and

B. address the fact that, after committing to working with Parliament on the makeup of the advisory group, the government appointed climate activists whose influence, if acted upon, would lead to the destruction of the oil and gas sector, disproportionately threaten certain regions of the country and their essential industries, and weaken national unity.”

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

The amendment is in order.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, maybe procedures have changed, but with questions and comments when an hon. member raises their hand, am I not entitled to ask a question?

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

Absolutely. I was just confirming how to proceed. I am sorry.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, to my hon. colleague, it is entirely the point that when one understands a carbon budget and when one understands the threat of maintaining or expanding oil and gas activity over even the next decade or more, the chances of losing human civilization to runaway global warming are very severe, and we should be planning for the protection of workers and an orderly transition away from fossil fuels. In fact, that is what is required and being planned around the world.

I would ask my hon. Conservative colleague how the Conservative Party can claim to have a climate plan but think expanding oil and gas well into the future is some sort of right based on regional representation.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to pay my respects to the member of the Green Party. I can assure her that I welcome each and every question and will ensure that she will have the time to ask questions.

To the member's point, we have to realize the truth that we live, and I will give the example of Quebec. In the province of Quebec, based on the last study, nine billion litres of gasoline were sold last last year. Around 60% came from America.

We would prefer to have Canadian oil instead of American oil. However, if we cancel projects such as Keystone XL and Line 5, which is the will, unfortunately, of the new administration in America, then where will America get its oil from? It will get it from countries that are bigger polluters than we are. So, to save the planet, I will support the Canadian oil and gas industry.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I think that the government over the last six years has clearly demonstrated its ability to appreciate the value of our environment and the importance of our natural resources, recognizing that we need to take into consideration the environment, the economy, indigenous issues and other issues that surround it. Our policy has been very successful.

Maybe my colleague could elaborate on why it is that the Conservatives have not been able to land on anything successfully that deals with a very important aspect, the environment, and doing what is right for the environment. This is something that Canadians want them to do. Why have they not been successful—

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

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to pay my respects to my hon. colleague. I know I should not say it, but I miss him in the House.

I will get to the point. When my hon. colleague talks about first nations, the industry and the people, unfortunately, with the Liberal policy, we have heard the Prime Minister saying that we need to phase it out. We have heard the Prime Minister say that it is not going down as fast as expected.

This Prime Minister is not pro-Canadian industry. I would even say that this Prime Minister is not a friend of the first nations that are working hand in hand with the oil and gas industry in Canada. We had great projects for being self-sufficient in Canada with the support of first nations, but, unfortunately, as this government failed to recognize that, a lot of good projects have been cancelled.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a bit surprised the member had the audacity to put forward an amendment that criticized the bill in front of us because it fails to that recognize climate change is real. After all, it was his party that voted that they did not believe climate change was real. Is it a bit surprising in that aspect.

I believe in his remarks, he suggested that the Conservative Party supports a zero-emission vehicle mandate, similar to the one in British Columbia. Is that true? Is that something that we can work with him on?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, it is written in our motion that climate change is real, so we have to address it. I think he will support our motion because it is written in black and white in this resolution. If he votes against it, unfortunately we will not recognize that and shame on him, but we will see what his vote will be. Based on that, I want to be very clear: Yes, it is written in black and white in our policy. Yes, we will—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my wonderful colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent with whom I have the pleasure of sharing a riding border.

I only have two minutes, but I have a lot to say. I would like to begin by reiterating to the House that the Conservative Party of Canada acknowledges climate change. Yesterday, our leader presented a plan for the environment. I was very proud of his leadership.

The summary of Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050, includes five components. My colleague brought to the attention of all members of the House the third component, which indicates that the bill:

(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;

The thing that bothers us about this bill is that the Liberals once again have a hidden agenda. They are already making appointments and have determined who will sit on the advisory committee.

Would it be possible to respect every industry and stakeholder in Canada and work together on building the necessary tools to address climate change and lower greenhouse gases? Stop pitting the north against the south, the east against the west, industry X against industry Y. Let us work together. Do we not want to develop a plan to get results? Unfortunately, what this bill is proposing will not produce results for nine years, but we need to act now.

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

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Bill C-12—Time Allocation Motion

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That, in relation 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, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, since this bill has been introduced, the government's climate change plan has changed at least three times, while the bill has only been up for a couple of days of debate, no more than 12 hours in total. How can the government say that debate is done when it changes its plans and gives us no ability to debate the bill in this place?

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

Madam Speaker, the bill is now up for its fifth day of debate since November. We have already had important conversations since the bill's tabling and we are very much looking forward to having further debate at the next stages of the bill.

I would note that the Conservatives have reversed their stated position in the House of Commons to support Bill C-12, with their motion last Friday to effectively kill the bill, and they did not include a 2050 net-zero commitment in their climate pamphlet. They announced that they would cancel Canada's new nationally determined contribution, and today, they tried to block debate on the bill yet again.

It is time for us to move to committee to ensure that we can have a robust discussion of how we—

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

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Madam Speaker, I would echo the frustration that all of a sudden we find ourselves in a rush to push the bill through. The bill was brought forward last November and then only appeared for one hour of debate in March. Now we find ourselves in April and we are in a huge panic to get the bill through to committee.

We do support climate accountability. I wonder if the minister could explain to us why he is so reluctant to commit to a specific number of megatonnes of greenhouse gases reduced by 2025 on the path to 2030.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said, the bill is now up for its fifth day of debate since November. I am a little surprised to hear that from my New Democratic colleague, given that my understanding has been that the NDP members support the intent of the bill.

Certainly we are focused on ensuring transparency and accountability, and we have been very clear with all members of the House very much, including my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, that we are open to the consideration of ways in which to enhance transparency and accountability going forward.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, talking about climate change is important.

Personally, I am still wondering why people keep asking for time allocation. I am sure the problem stems from the government House leader's management of the calendar. It is not okay to prevent and circumscribe debate in the House. This is an important bill, and we have talked about it four times.

Why is the government having such a hard time managing its legislative calendar?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is now the fifth day of debate on this bill since November.

We have discussed this bill at length since it was introduced, and we are very eager to move on to the next stage of debate. All parties, including the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and even the Conservatives, though they backtracked last week, said they wanted to send this bill to committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I am afraid I find the Liberals' protestations that we are on the fifth day of debate rather thin. They brought it forward in November. Did we see it again in December? No. Did we see it in January? No. Did we see it in February? No. It came back in March for three and a half hours, conveniently on a Wednesday afternoon with very little time for debate, and then, worse, we did not see it again until one day in April, when we had one hour of debate on a Friday afternoon. We have not yet arrived at a slot that would be available for anyone who is not a Liberal, Conservative, Bloc or NDP member to speak.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said, the bill is now up for its fifth day of debate since November, and we have certainly had some important conversations, but there will be opportunities for additional conversations at committee. It is important to all members in the House, even the Conservatives, until last week, and they have suggested that they support the principles of this bill. We have said that we are open to progressive and thoughtful amendments at committee.

There is significant and appropriate time for consideration at committee. It is time for us to move forward. For those of us who think climate change is a priority, we need to move forward.

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

Madam Speaker, the last comment the minister made was “for those who think climate change is important”. Indeed, this is an important topic and we need to move on with it. We have seen over the last number of months procedural move after procedural move by the Conservatives to slow down debate on virtually everything. Nothing seems to matter anymore, other than proving that this government cannot do anything, and they will do whatever they can to make that a reality.

Would the minister not agree that given the current crisis in front of us with climate change, we need to deal with this now and move forward on this?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed to see the approach the Conservative Party has taken on this bill.

When it was first introduced, the Conservative Party critic said, “It may raise some eyebrows that my party will be supporting this bill at second reading, but if we are going to have any success, we need to find those things that we can agree upon and take action.” The Conservative finance critic, the member for Abbotsford, said, “Conservatives in the House support this legislation.”

Last week, they reversed their stated position in the House to support the bill and effectively tried to kill it. They did not include a 2050 net-zero commitment in their climate pamphlet. To be honest, I think Canadians find it very unusual that the Conservative Party is not willing to—

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

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

First, Madam Speaker, the minister is completely wrong. He says that the Conservative climate plan, which will achieve our targets for 2030, is a pamphlet. The targets that the government put out last week did not even have a napkin with a 40% to 45%. I take no criticism from the minister on this.

Generally, what is the urgency in pushing this bill forward? The government has already put forward a plan to hit existing targets, a terrible plan, but a plan nonetheless. It has appointed the advisory group and filled it with anti-oil extremists. However, I digress. It has been able to do many of the things that this bill purportedly says it would do. Why not let members have more input, particularly since the government has changed its own climate change goals three times since December of last year?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is a whole range of issues that probably should be addressed in what the hon. member said, but let me talk about the net-zero advisory body that will provide advice to the government as it charts the path to net zero. This group is comprised of exceptional Canadians, with a wide range of experience and expertise. This drive-by smearing by the Conservative Party is not only ridiculous, but it is offensive.

Some of the members include Gaëtan Thomas, CEO of Conseil économique du Nouveau-Brunswick and the former CEO of New Brunswick Power; John Wright, former CEO of Saskatchewan Power; Linda Coady, who served as Enbridge's chief sustainability—

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

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. His government has targets, but its plan is incoherent, illogical and dubious.

We agree about the accountability to Parliament piece and the periodic review of greenhouse gas reduction target achievement.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change does not want us to do that review in 2025. What is he afraid of? Why does he want to wait until 2030?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that there needs to be transparency throughout the process.

This legislation is all about accountability and complete transparency, including a binding legal process requiring the federal government to set climate targets, present an ambitious climate plan every five years between 2030 and 2050, and table a 2030 progress report by the end of 2027 as well as a 2030 assessment report within 30 days of the inventory report data—

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

Order. The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change is unilaterally imposing a gag order on Parliament, in other words, muzzling all the members who want to have their say, when this is such an important issue.

The Liberals have been in power for six years. Why is this minister forcing members to keep their mouths shut and not have this debate?

I would remind the minister of a Radio-Canada article published on April 26 that points out that partisanship must be set aside, since this is one of the most important issues for the future of our environment.

Why is the minister saying that it is important to get this bill to committee, but it is no longer important to discuss it in the House?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is time to do something about the climate crisis. The bill is now up for its fifth day of debate, and we have already had important conversations since it was tabled in November. We are very much looking forward to having further debate at the next stages of the bill.

Every party has said they support sending this bill to committee. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP agree, and even the Conservatives reversed their position last week.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like the minister's comments on the conflicting messaging that is coming from the Conservatives?

The member made reference to the legislation itself, but with respect to the environment, in general, the Conservative membership across the country does not recognize that climate change is real. Now the Conservatives seem to be taking a different position in their brochure, to which he made reference, where they appear to want to have some sort of a price on pollution.

Could the minister provide his thoughts on why it is important we have more clarity from the Conservative Party of Canada?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is very important that we have clarity from the Conservative Party on this issue. Certainly the fact that a majority of the Conservative Party's members voted to say, effectively, that climate change was not real is a cause for significant concern among the Canadian population. The fact that the Conservatives have put in place a carbon tax as part of the pamphlet they have released is a step forward, but the contents of the pamphlet are extremely disappointing and would make very little progress with respect to the climate issue.

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

Madam Speaker, it is disingenuous for the minister to pretend that the government is serious about climate change when it is spending nearly $20 billion trying to ram through the Trans Mountain pipeline. It is also disingenuous for him to pretend that an hour of debate equals a day of debate. The fact is that over the last six months the government has not put this on the House agenda.

The minister says that he wants to have discussions at committee. The environmental movement, important environmental organizations and the NDP have all been pushing for 2025 targets. In the midst of this climate emergency, is the minister saying today that he will accept 2025 targets in the legislation?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, this government takes the climate crisis very seriously. We have developed Canada's first national climate plan. We have now enhanced our ambition with respect to the targets we are proceeding to address. We certainly support enhanced reporting to ensure that we and all future governments are on track to meet our newly announced nationally determined contribution for 2030. This is something we will be discussing at committee. It will be important, and I have been very clear, that we are open to constructive discussion about how we enhance transparency and accountability in this bill. We need to get it to committee and I look forward to doing that.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I echo some of the comments of my colleague for New Westminster—Burnaby about the minister's disingenuousness about having this in front of Parliament in the first place. Would he prefer to have this type of legislation, which my party would like very much to debate and have our input on, decided by his bureaucrats alone without any input from democratically elected Canadians? That seems to be his bent, particularly with the clean fuel standard. This is a way of addressing the climate debate and seeing what options the country has going forward.

Would the minister not agree this is something Canadians should have their elected representatives put their opinions on in public?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said, this bill is now up for its fifth day of debate since November. I am not sure why the hon. member would not see that committee discussion and debate would further that debate in public.

I note the Conservative Party used to support this bill. The member for Abbotsford indicated Conservatives in the House support this legislation. The member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola said that his party would be supporting this bill at second reading.

The Conservative Party reversed its stated position in the House of Commons to support Bill C-12 with its motion last Friday to effectively kill the bill. It did not include a 2050 net-zero commitment in the climate pamphlet it released a couple of weeks ago. It is important for us to move forward. Canadians want us to address climate change. They would like to see a Conservative Party that actually believes in climate change.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to echo the thoughts of my colleagues who have talked to the frustration we are seeing on the NDP side of the House. I talk to a lot of citizens concerned with climate action who have been frustrated for months by the lack of priority the government is putting on this. I spoke to this bill when it first came out in November. Here we are in April, five or six months later, and we are still talking about it. It has not even gone to committee.

The Conservatives have used various dysfunctional machinations to slow things down. We just had an hour of useless debate this morning. The NDP really wants climate action now. We really favour accountability in climate action. Jack Layton brought forward—

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

I have to give the minister an opportunity to answer.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member will remember when I introduced this bill I did actually speak to the fact that Jack Layton had introduced a bill some years ago. Unfortunately, it was killed by the Conservative Party of Canada.

As I say, we attach the same priority to moving this forward and addressing the climate crisis. I welcome the input from the hon. member and his colleagues, but we need to get this to committee so we can work to improve this bill. We need to get it through to ensure it is in place.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment.

Last week, we saw the government perform a magic trick with regard to the environment and fighting climate change in Canada. In the budget, the government proposed a 36% target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Then, three days later, on Earth Day, that target suddenly turned into 45%.

I would remind the House that Canada has never once managed to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets, neither the ones it set itself nor the ones agreed to in international agreements. It has never happened.

What happened between Monday and Thursday that made the target go from 36% to 45%?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, in December, our government unveiled its strengthened climate plan to meet and exceed its climate targets. Our plan included 64 new measures and $15 billion in investments to fulfil our commitments.

Last week, budget 2021 unveiled additional measures, including increased harmonization with our largest trading partner, the United States, to go even further. We will continue to work with Canadians, civil society organizations, the provinces, the territories and indigenous people to ensure that we meet our targets.

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

Madam Speaker, this is, in fact, the first time I have had an opportunity to speak to this bill, so I find it completely disingenuous on the part of the government to say that we have had enough debate on this. This bill is completely inadequate. We have not met any of our climate targets in the past and this bill would not hold this government to account. It would not hold the next government to account. Our targets are inadequate for—

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

We have a point of order.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is a problem with the interpretation.

I believe I have the right to hear what my colleague is saying. Would it be possible to check that everything is working?

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

Interpretation is working now.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

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

Madam Speaker, I will start again. The debate on this bill has been completely inadequate. This is, in fact, the first time that I have had an opportunity to speak to this bill. I have tried in the past to get up and speak, ask questions and raise comments. This bill is completely inadequate. The Canadian government has failed to meet any of the climate targets that it has committed to, nine of them in a row. This bill would not hold the government to account. It would not hold the next government to account. Our current target is inadequate—

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

We will let the minister answer.

The hon. minister.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-12 has a legally binding process for the federal government to set climate targets and bring forward plans to meet those targets. It has rigorous ongoing process reports, yearly reports by the independent advisory body and ongoing audits by the Office of the Auditor General. Additionally, we proposed embedding Canada's new NDC for 2030 directly into the act as the target for 2030.

With respect to the comments on the climate plan, I would ask the hon. member to have a word with former B.C. Green Party leader and leading climate scientist Andrew Weaver. Last week he said, “For the very first time, I am now hopeful that the world will come together to dramatically reduce global GHG emissions,” and that the United States and Canada were providing important leadership.

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

Madam Speaker, climate change and the need to have action now requires leadership. Leadership is not about waiting for public opinion to be on one's side all the time. We have to make bold decisions and move with them quickly, as we did five years ago when we started talking about putting a price on pollution. We now see that the Conservatives have suddenly come to the conclusion that it is necessary, most likely because they realize that public opinion is on the side of pricing pollution.

Can the minister comment on the struggles that he and the government have gone through over the last five years in fighting the Conservatives on this issue, although now they suddenly have come to realize it is the right thing to do?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party has opposed climate action at almost every turn. I found it somewhat ironic that the Conservative Party, in the pamphlet it put out in the past few weeks, endorsed the carbon tax and the clean fuel standard, both of which it has attacked this government on, day by day. Unfortunately, the plan it has put forward is very weak. It will make very limited progress and I think Canadians understand they cannot trust the Conservative Party—

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

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the minister was in this place and promised to work with all parties on Bill C-12. At that time, we gave the suggestion that perhaps there needed to be industry representation to make sure that critical industry voice was heard. What did the minister do? He promoted people who have said things on social media like, “At Davos we will tell world leaders to abandon the fossil fuel economy.” Another one stated, “[Canada] must demonstrate how a major fossil fuels producer and exporter can transition away from these pollutants”. He did the exact opposite.

If the minister wants to know why we have reversed our position, it is because he broke trust. No prime minister, and no government, should be divisive and try to tell a particular region or province that its aspirations have to take second to their own Davos crowd.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us be serious here. The members of the group were selected to represent the diversity of the Canadian population. This included representation from all regions of the country as well as gender balance, indigenous people and visible minorities. It included a range of perspectives. I would say to my colleague that he should have a look at the full list. It includes Peter Tertzakian, the chief economist for ARC Financial, a major energy player in Calgary; Dan Wicklum, the CEO of the Transition Accelerator and the founder and CEO of Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance; Linda Coady, who served as Enbridge's chief vice-president of sustainability; and Gaëtan Thomas, who is the former CEO of New Brunswick Power. Let us be—

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

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Madam Speaker, Canadians look at all of the climate targets that Canada has set, yet we have met none of them. They look at that record and have a hard time trusting that we are going to meet the 2030 target.

Would the minister please clearly explain what is so difficult about the target-setting process that prevents him from setting a target for 2025?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I have said, we are open to constructive amendments to improve transparency and accountability with respect to this bill going forward.

However, with respect to the climate plan and the comments that my hon. colleague has made, certainly this is a comprehensive approach. It has been recognized by the former leader of the NDP, who called the plan absolutely marvellous and said that it would put Canada on track with respect to our Paris accord obligations. He also said that the Prime Minister and I had published a very bold, all-encompassing, frankly brilliant climate plan. I suggest that perhaps the member might have a conversation with Mr. Mulcair.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering what the government's plans are to deal with Canadians who are at risk of slipping into energy poverty. The regulations on the clean fuel standards printed in the Gazette show a very clear picture that middle- and lower-income Canadians are at risk of slipping into energy poverty because of increases in transportation fuel and home heating expenses.

How is this going to address that concern?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, the clean fuel standard is an important part of reducing the carbon content of liquid fuels, and we certainly are working to ensure that it is implemented in a manner that is going to be affordable to all Canadians. That includes increasing accessibility to biofuels and hydrogen through the monies we have allocated to stimulate economic activity in those areas.

I find it a little bizarre that the hon. member is actually asking that question. He might want to review the Conservative Party pamphlet on climate change. It advocates for a more aggressive clean fuel standard, which will have other effects—

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

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the minister likes to throw around words like “accountability” and “transparency”. The heritage minister said that the government would be putting the brand new 45% target into the bill, yet there has been zero debate on the bill since the targets were set.

How can we vote on the intent of the bill with zero debate on a significant change to the bill's goal?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had read the bill when it was introduced, it has always been the case that Canada's nationally determined contribution would form the initial 2030 target for the accountability legislation. The nationally determined contribution was moved to 40%-45% last week, which is in line with the commitments that our country and all countries have made under the Paris agreement to ratchet up their ambitions over time and bring our targets in line with the 2° and, ideally, the 1.5° target.

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

Madam Speaker, I still do not understand why we do not have a 2025 target. I do not understand how we can meet our targets when this government continues to pour money into the fossil fuel industry, including $18 billion to the Trans Mountain expansion project and continuing to subsidize oil and gas.

How are we going to meet our targets, and how is the bill going to keep this government accountable when the first target is in 2030?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, certainly having a robust and comprehensive climate plan is the first step. Canada has that, developed through the pan-Canadian framework and the strengthened climate plan we announced in December. We have added to that with additional investments made in the budget, as well as with the work we are doing with the Americans on a continental approach in a couple of different areas.

Certainly, it is the most detailed climate plan, or one of the most detailed that exists in the world, and Bill C-12 is an important part of that. It would provide transparency and accountability. As I have said, we are open to constructive amendments at committee as to how we can further improve it.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, if the minister really wants to move this through the House and actually have some input on it, he may not have appointed all members of the board that should have resulted from this, as opposed to actually working with other members in the House of Commons in constructing that after this went through.

Is this legislation really just a hurdle that he has to get over as quickly as possible to implement a plan that he would rather implement in the dark corners than in public with consultation and input from other parties?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, certainly the focus of the climate plan has required input from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We have made a commitment that we will stand up an expert independent body that will provide additional advice to the government, as it goes forward, into finding net-zero pathways. This needs to draw on perspectives from all different parts of society. That is why we launched the independent net-zero advisory body. It is a group of exceptional Canadians across various parts of this country from industry, labour and academia to help us to ensure Canada is moving forward in the appropriate way, and I would—

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

Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the 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.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

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

Call in the members.

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

Vote #98

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from April 16 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.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather disappointing to see the government bring in time allocation to restrict, or even muzzle, parliamentarians in their debate on a very important bill.

The environment is very important. I have said this many times and I cannot stress it enough. I want all Liberals and everyone to understand that our party, the Conservative Party of Canada, recognizes climate change.

Our leader presented an environment plan last week. I am not sure if that is what provoked the Liberals, but I want to point out that in the week following the presentation of our plan the Liberals changed their greenhouse gas reduction target three times. On Sunday, April 18, they were at 30%. In the budget presented on Monday, April 19, they were at 36%. On Thursday, April 22, in a bid to impress the rest of the world, that figure went up to 45%.

Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will go down in 2021, but I assure Canadians that this will have nothing to do with the Liberals. The current health crisis has indeed caused a worldwide reduction in greenhouse gases, and I hope that the Liberals will not take credit for it.

The Liberals have been in power for six years and, unfortunately, nothing has been done. From 2015 to 2021, greenhouse gas emissions increased by 5% under this government, which had a majority for four years and is now in minority in its second term, which will last who knows how long. That is a fact. Nevertheless, the Liberals have the audacity to tell us to keep quiet about this important subject. That is a big problem for me because there has to be respect for the institution.

Let me get back to the bill “respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050”. This bill fundamentally has merit because it seeks to protect the environment for future generations.

However, I, and many others in Canada, think that the Liberals have a hidden agenda. There are five parts to the bill summary, and one very important one is both troubling and worrisome. In the interests of transparency, something that the Conservatives really value, unlike the Liberals, I want to share a quote from the bill. The bill:

(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;

The bill itself says the following:

20(1) There is established an advisory body whose mandate is to provide the Minister with advice with respect to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, including advice respecting measures and sectoral strategies that the Government of Canada could implement to achieve a greenhouse gas emissions target, and any matter referred to it by the Minister, and to conduct engagement activities related to achieving net-zero emissions.

21(2) The advisory body is composed of no more than fifteen members, who are appointed on a part-time basis for a renewable term of up to three years.

The very next part of Bill C-12 has to do with the committee's terms of reference. It states, “The Minister may determine and amend the terms of reference of the advisory body”.

As I said at the outset, the liberal government has a hidden agenda. Based on what we know right now about its membership, the government has appointed—or pre-appointed, if I may be so bold—people to the advisory body. However, the bill has yet to be accepted. The selection of members is therefore a concern.

I am giving the second part of my speech today. In the first part, I mentioned that we do recognize climate change and that all Canadians must work together if we want to get results.

Canada has a wealth of natural resources in oil and hydrocarbons. Not a single person from this industry has been appointed to the advisory body. The government prefers to import foreign oil from places where it has no control over how it is extracted.

We must begin the energy transition, and that can only happen if we use the resources we have. We must act intelligently, in partnership with all stakeholders involved in greenhouse gas emissions, so that everyone can contribute. That is the problem with Bill C-12.

My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent moved a motion calling on the House to decline second reading of Bill C-12 and do the following very specific thing:

(b) address the fact that, after committing to working with Parliament on the makeup of the advisory group, the government appointed climate activists whose influence, if acted upon, would lead to the destruction of the oil and gas sector, disproportionally threaten certain regions of the country and their essential industries, and weaken national unity.

The Liberal government claims to be very inclusive. Can we work together to come up with solutions? Considering this government's attitude, we do not get the feeling that it wants to find solutions. It has a hidden agenda, and that is unfortunate.

We all recognize the importance of taking action on climate change, and it is the Conservative Party that will deliver.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have a very simple question for him.

We agree that the principle of Bill C-12 on climate accountability is a step in the right direction. In fact, Jack Layton introduced a bill along those lines in 2006. However, there is a lot missing from Bill C-12. The government wants to conduct assessments and produce reports every five years, but, for the Liberals, “in five years” means 2030. The year 2025 does not exist. We do not know why the Liberals are putting this off for practically a decade.

What does my Conservative Party colleague think about the fact that government is putting off Parliament's responsibilities?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, with whom I have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

He is absolutely right about the fact that the Liberal government thinks this is so urgent that it has just imposed a gag order on us.

I want to take this opportunity to give my colleague a message. I think it is unfortunate that the New Democrats supported the amendment in question.

Let us get back to the facts. It is important to act now. I remember the Liberal government saying in 2018 that we needed to take action and that it was urgent we do so. Yes, it is urgent that we take action. However, as I already mentioned in the House, under Bill C-12, there will have been two majority governments and one year of a minority government before we begin to see results. That is ridiculous.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, on the CBC website today, I read that the union representing oil and gas workers supports ambitious greenhouse gas emissions targets.

I would like to know who the member is speaking on behalf of. Is he speaking on behalf of energy workers or someone else?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis.

Had my colleague listened to my speech, he would have known that I said we need to work with all stakeholders in the industries involved. Workers want to have an impact. They want to contribute, but they are not represented on the advisory body. Oil and gas industry representatives are not part of the process.

Your government says it is inclusive, so you should work with everyone around the table to come up with a unanimous approach and have a meaningful impact on the environment. That is what we have to do for our children and grandchildren.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that he is to address his questions and comments to the Chair, not directly to the member.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague.

One of the Liberal government's key campaign promises was to plant two billion trees over about 10 years. That breaks down to 200 million trees a year. As far as we know, not that many trees have been planted, maybe 100,000. The government broke its promise.

What does my colleague think of the idea of planting trees to help combat climate change?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to apologize for my previous intervention.

In response to the question by my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, I would say that unfortunately, the government has broken its promises yet again.

Tree planting is a tangible measure. Carbon capture from planting trees has a positive impact. Every environmentalist and every scientist agrees with that.

I would like to inform my colleague that all the members of the Conservative Party of Canada have planted far more trees than the Liberals have in six years.

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

Madam Speaker, we are indeed in a climate crisis. This Parliament voted to affirm that.

Does the hon. member think we should have a target for 2025? As well, should the government be responsible for meeting that target in 2025, whoever is running the government?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

We must act now if we want to have an impact as quickly as possible. We have had a health crisis. The current government was slow to react and to close the border, but it did react eventually. If we want to do something about the climate crisis, we must act very quickly.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and privilege to be a strong voice for the hard-working people of Mississauga East—Cooksville. I know first-hand just how devastating the impacts of climate change can be on their lives. My riding in the city of Mississauga has had to deal with some of the worst flash flooding in the country. Extreme weather events that used to happen every 40 years are now happening every six years. Canadian cities are facing two crises as they converge in a perfect storm, the combination of a rapid rise in extreme weather events, as a result of climate change, with growing deficits in sewer and storm-water infrastructure.

On that note, I want to thank our government for the millions of infrastructure dollars in assistance it has provided Mississauga to help mitigate future flood damage. Per year, there are now 20 more days of rain in Canada. That is up 12% since 1950. In 2012, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimated that replacement costs for Canada's sewer and storm-water infrastructure would be almost $55 billion.

In Mississauga, we are seeing floods. Across Canada, we are seeing more intense fires, floods, droughts, heat waves and hurricanes tearing through communities, ripping away lives and livelihoods, and having increasingly dire impacts on our public health.

I say all this to make it crystal clear that climate change is the greatest long-term threat that we face as a community, both locally and globally. It is also our greatest economic opportunity. Members may ask how great it is, and it is a massive $2.6-trillion opportunity. By taking bold climate action, we will create new jobs for the future, strengthen our economy and grow the middle class, while also ensuring clean air and water for our kids and grandkids.

Canada has become a global leader in clean technology, with 11 Canadian companies appearing on the 2021 global clean tech 100 list of the most innovative and promising clean technologies from around the world.

Our neighbour to the south, our greatest trading partner and friend, the United States of America, has resolved to take bold action on climate change as an opportunity to create millions of good-paying middle-class jobs. Going forward, Canada will continue to work closely with the United States and other countries to reach our ambitious climate goals, creating growth and improving the well-being of all people.

Members may ask how we will achieve all that. It is spelled out through our government's ambitious Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. The question will be posed, and it is a great question. Let me explain.

Let us look at some of this government's most recent investments. Since October 2020, we have invested $53.6 billion to establish Canada's green recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, create jobs and secure a cleaner future for everyone. On top of that, budget 2021, which was announced last week, also builds on that approach, including through a new investment in Canada's net-zero accelerator that will incentivize Canadian businesses and industry to develop net-zero technologies and build our clean industrial advantage.

Budget 2021 also includes new measures to make life more affordable and communities more livable by helping more than 200,000 Canadians make their homes greener and working toward conserving 30% of Canada's lands and oceans by 2030. These new measures will help Canada exceed its Paris climate targets, reduce pollution and reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Since 2015, we have been committed to finding real solutions to help tackle the climate crisis while also creating jobs, strengthening our economy and growing the middle class and those working hard to join it. We have put a rising price on pollution that puts money back into the pockets of Canadians, made new investments in public transit and banned harmful single-use plastics to protect our oceans. Together, we will continue to take action in fighting against climate change and secure a better future for Canadians.

Canada has set an ambitious emissions reduction target under the Paris Agreement of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030. Bill C-12 brings the accountability and transparency that are required to achieve our goals. The bill has robust accountability and transparency included within it: a requirement to put in place a target and establish an emissions reduction plan, both to be tabled in Parliament within six months of coming into force of the act; 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; a 2030 progress report, which must be tabled before the end of 2027; a 2030 assessment report, to be tabled within 30 days of the 2030 national inventory report data; an annual report detailing how the federal government is managing the financial risks of climate change and the opportunities; and a review by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development within five years of coming into force of the bill.

The very structure of the Paris Agreement is based on the year 2030. Our plans in provinces like B.C. are to be commended, as well as Quebec and those around the world. Bill C-12 includes best practices that we have found around the world, such as the creation of an advisory body.

This is consistent with the undertaking we have seen by our peer countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, New Zealand and France. An advisory body composed of up to 15 experts is established to provide the Minister of Environment and Climate Change advice with respect to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. This advisory body would engage with experts, stakeholders, indigenous peoples and the public to make sure its advice is grounded in the priorities and ideas of all Canadians. The advisory body would submit an annual report to the Minister of Environment with respect to its advice and activities.

Bill C-12 would provide an opportunity to secure a prosperous and sustainable future. By taking this decisive action now, we are creating the industries of the future, creating good-paying jobs, advancing innovative technologies and protecting our country and the world from the utter destruction of climate change.

I encourage my fellow parliamentarians to support Bill C-12 and its speedy passage. They are voting for a bill that would set a strong foundation for a healthier environment, economic growth and possibilities for today and beyond.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, this member just voted to have this steamrolled through. I really hope he is interested in debating today.

The Minister of Environment has put forward an advisory council, and members of that advisory council have actually made comments against oil and gas, saying they want to phase it out, specifically the Davos approach. Does the member agree with that kind of rhetoric? Does he agree with the targeting of Alberta? Let us not forget Newfoundland and Labrador, which also has its own aspirations for oil and gas, as well as British Columbia, with liquefied natural gas.

Does the member agree with having that kind of division sown upon giving advice to the minister?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I respect the hon. member, but I reject the premise of that question. That hon. member and the member's party, the Conservatives, have been obstructionists to any kind of climate change policy for the last six years. They have blocked, stymied and done everything possible to stop legislation in Canada from moving forward on real opportunity for meeting our targets. That member does not have the ground to stand upon. As well, members of the Conservative Party of Canada believe climate change is not real.

When it comes to the advisory council, it is representative of all of Canada, all sectors, genders, and indigenous people. It is the type of advisory panel one would want to see represented in the Parliament of Canada.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, passion is a wonderful thing. I was moved by the speech that my colleague from Mississauga East—Cooksville gave. It reminded me of the fine speeches given by Jean-Marc Chaput, the well-known Quebec speaker who unfortunately passed away last year.

In 2017, the Liberal government imposed new greenhouse gas emission reduction standards for highly polluting products used to manufacture insulation board.

These new standards were to be implemented in 2021. In January 2021, afew months before the new rules were to go into effect, these same Liberals granted exemptions to multinationals, while Canadian businesses like Soprema had invested millions of dollars in a new product. This has led to an imbalance in the market, and Soprema is paying the price, even though it did all the right things.

I would like to know if my colleague believes that this is the way to reduce greenhouse gases and help companies get through this crisis.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I offer my condolences for the loss of the member's friend, who was passionate about climate change and the subject.

When it comes to looking at industry and understanding about jobs, industry has gotten behind this legislation. The forestry industry is just one example, as well as labour. Jerry Dias, Unifor national president, said, “Canada can meet [its] international climate change obligations and create good jobs at the same time.” We are working together with all stakeholders to make sure we get this right.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am getting really bad flashbacks to 2005, when Stéphane Dion was standing in the House making the same kind of wild statements about making the world a better place, when in fact there were no standards, there were no plans, and year in, year out our greenhouse gas emissions were rising, as they have been under the Liberals.

Last year, the Liberal government put $18 billion into the oil and gas sector. How is it credible that the Liberals can tell the world they are leading, when they are not putting money into alternatives and continue to maintain the 20th century economy as it was?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, maybe the member did not have an opportunity to hear some of my remarks.

We have invested $53 billion in creating jobs and securing a cleaner future for everyone. In budget 2021, there are a number of initiatives for more affordable communities, more livable communities, helping 200,000 Canadians make their homes greener, and working toward conservation, with 30% of Canada's lands and oceans being protected by 2030. The targets are there, the numbers are there and the dollars are there, I say to the member.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to debate the federal government’s climate ambitions and the Liberal Party’s commitments in Bill C-12.

We are in quite a predicament. On the one hand, the Liberals want to accelerate the debate because they have just realized that they did not give Bill C-12 enough priority in their parliamentary calendar. On the other hand, the Conservatives have tabled a motion in amendment seeking, not to modify Bill C-12, but to draw the debate out and have “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-12”. That is something.

It is ironic that the motion to amend asks the government to “implement a plan that recognizes climate change is real”, when the Conservative Party does not even recognize climate change exists. I would like to remind members that, at their convention a few weeks ago, 54% of Conservative members rejected a motion to recognize the existence of climate change. Regardless of what the party leader said to try to rectify the situation, the members were clear and, as a result, the environmental plan they tabled a few days later has no credibility at all.

The Conservatives want the government to fight climate change “while also ensuring that economic development and job growth can flourish all across Canada”. We understand that that is the Conservatives’ greatest fear; for them, a green shift means an economy in tatters. Just last week, a Conservative member moved a motion asking that the government recognize that “replacing oil and gas with more environmentally sustainable options is not technologically or economically feasible”. That is rich. Not only is it excessive to ask the government to do something like that, it is also irresponsible to make such a statement unequivocally. I fear that people will be misled.

Quebec is living proof that polluting fuels can be replaced by clean energy and that the green shift is good for the economy. Quebec is a champion for green energy and the reason Canada enjoys an enviable position on the world stage. We have an advantage over the 50 U.S. states and the other Canadian provinces thanks to these investments, and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry said as much recently. The green technologies developed in Quebec are already being marketed outside the country, and the benefits for Quebeckers are significant. For example, Hydro-Québec has signed agreements with New York, Vermont and Massachusetts.

There is much to reproach the government for, but it has understood one thing: we need to move forward with the development of green energy, because it is good for the planet and for the economy. We need to stop thinking about the environment and the economy as mutually exclusive, because they are actually complementary.

The Conservatives' amendment also tries to make the government admit that the members it appointed to the advisory group provided for in the bill included “climate activists whose influence, if acted upon, would lead to the destruction of the oil and gas sector, disproportionally threaten certain regions of the country and their essential industries, and weaken national unity.”

Once again, that is quite a statement. Of course, we are not surprised that the Conservative Party is defending the oil and gas sectors. Equally unsurprisingly, climate and environmental policy experts say that these two sectors are harmful to the environment. We cannot bury our heads in the sand. It would be surprising if the experts said that in order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, we need to continue investing heavily in the oil and gas industry. That would be very surprising.

I expect that the experts are well aware that this industry is the Achilles heel of the government's climate ambitions, and that they are also aware that supporting the industry is not viable in the short, medium or long term if we want to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

The government is certainly being ambitious with its targets, but it is becoming difficult to follow. Since the Liberal Party came to power, its greenhouse gas emission reduction target has been 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, which was the same target established by the Paris Agreement and Stephen Harper's government.

The climate plan presented last December proposed to exceed this target. With the increase in the federal carbon tax, we could now expect a 31% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The target in last Monday's budget was a 36% reduction by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. This new target was soon superseded when, on the margins of the climate summit hosted by U.S. President Joe Biden last Thursday, the Prime Minister of Canada announced a new target, or rather a range of targets.

Apparently, the target is now at least 40%, the minimum target that countries had to commit to in order to participate in the summit, but it could reach 45% if all goes well. The problem is that the $17.6 billion in green investments set out in the budget will allow us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 36%, not 40% or 45%.

Normand Mousseau, a physics professor at the Université de Montréal, says that if all of the greenhouse gas reduction measures work, in the best-case scenario, we would see a 23% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030.

In an interview on Friday, he said that based on what is happening in other countries, a carbon tax alone is not enough to meet our targets. We need to create new standards or new regulations to decarbonize certain industries.

The federal government announced several billion dollars in investments, but the amounts are not aligned with the recently announced greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

We believe that this 40% or 45% reduction is more hot air than a real commitment. We believe that a real commitment would be ending support to the oil and gas industries. We believe that a real commitment would be announcing that we will never again finance a pipeline. We believe that a real commitment would start by incorporating the new target, whatever it is, into Bill C-12, which has not yet been done.

As the bill now reads, the minister must set a target for each milestone year, and the targets will be set one at a time, five years before the beginning of the milestone year to which they relate.

The problem is that the government refuses to include 2025 as a milestone year, because it is too soon or, more likely, because it would be unable to meet the target.

That means the first milestone year in Bill C-12 is 2030, and the target is a reduction of at least 40% in greenhouse gas emissions. I find it odd that the government is setting such a high bar for 2030 without establishing a means of measuring its progress before 2030, since that is the very purpose of the bill.

During question period last week, I asked the Minister of the Environment if the new Liberal target would be included in Bill C-12. The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who appears to be acting as the new minister of the environment, answered that yes, it would be included.

Before I get too excited, I wonder whether the actual Minister of the Environment endorses this commitment and whether he will propose an amendment to his bill to fulfill it. I sincerely hope so, because it is ridiculous to have a climate act without a greenhouse gas reduction target. It is also ridiculous to say that the minister will set the target once the act is in effect, and it is still more ridiculous to say that he can change the targets as he goes along.

Bill C-12 must show Canadians that Canada is truly meeting its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The act must be transparent and include a real accountability and reporting mechanism, because we are talking about climate accountability.

Seeing the Prime Minister make a commitment on the international stage is encouraging. It seems promising, and it is cute to do it on Earth Day. However, we must not forget that Canada has never succeeded in meeting any of the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets it has set over the years. Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris: the Government of Canada has failed lamentably each time.

Moreover, Canada is at the bottom of the class. It is the only G7 country where greenhouse gas emissions have increased since 2015. Why? Because it is an oil-producing country and it is incapable of stopping.

All this makes me think of the concept of “doublethink” from George Orwell's 1984. I am not saying that this government and the regime in Orwell's novel are anything alike, but the Liberals' environmental discourse is a perfect example of doublethink. According to Orwell, doublethink is the ability to hold two conflicting opinions simultaneously by suspending critical thinking. In Orwell's words, doublethink means “to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic”.

In my opinion, that perfectly describes the Liberals' strategy when it comes to climate change. The Liberals know they have to act, so they talk about a green recovery, the electrification of transportation and bioforestry. At the same time, however, they continue to subsidize the oil and gas industry heavily. They spend billions to buy an oil pipeline and even allow companies to drill for oil without environmental assessments.

The unbelievable thing is that they are convinced that they are doing the right thing, precisely because they are applying doublethink to climate change. The Liberals know that they are contradicting themselves, but they still believe in the virtue of these two diametrically opposed visions. They are not fooling anyone. Most of us actually have more confidence in Joe Biden, the new U.S. President, whose intentions are clear.

President Biden has announced that the United States will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% to 52% by 2030. Remember, the U.S. is also an oil-producing country. In fact, it produces more oil than Canada and has a larger population, but its target is more ambitious than ours. This is not a competition, but at least the United States has started working harder, and it even had to pressure Canada to do the same.

I sincerely hope that the Liberal government hears this message and that it is serious about its ambitions and commitments, because we are in a climate crisis. Time is running out.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know this is a topic my friend from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia is very passionate about. However, I will note to her that it is Canadian industry that in many ways is leading the way in the fight against climate change. Whether it is energy, forestry, mining or cement, we are seeing Canadian industry reducing GHG emissions by measures the government can only dream of right now. Why do the member and her party continue to follow the Liberals in their quest to destroy Canadian industry?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I do not believe the liberals are destroying Canadian energy sectors such as the oil and gas industry. On the contrary, they are continuing to subsidize it, give it tax breaks and invest to ensure that these huge industries contribute to reducing greenhouse gases. In my opinion, however, we need to invest more in green energy and other such opportunities.

To meet the ambitious targets that have been set, we must move forward with the energy transition. I would say that the oil and gas industry also has to make this transition, while continuing to provide well-paying jobs. However, we must keep in mind and acknowledge that the oil and gas industry does generate pollution.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have chosen to continue the trend of putting off climate action and left out any real accountability for the next 10 years. Does the member agree that back-loading climate action is the wrong approach and that accountability should start now, not in 2030?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I could not agree more. In fact, Bill C-215, which I introduced in the House, compels the government to be transparent about its climate ambitions, to have accountability mechanisms and to be accountable if it fails to meet its climate targets. The House, however, defeated my bill. We will try to improve Bill C-12 and ensure that it includes accountability measures.

The government cannot wait until 2030 to be accountable. It needs to begin by 2025. Time is running out, and we need to know whether its commitments are actually being met.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about the Conservative convention. The motion that the member is referring to contained many items. Members agreed on some but not all of those items. The same thing could be tried with the amendment that we are proposing today.

The amendment recognizes that climate change is real and makes other recommendations that members can either accept or not accept. I agree that we can support economic growth and environmental action at the same time. We also need to support our existing industry.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for making an effort to speak French. I also thank him for his question.

Unfortunately, I disagree with everything about the motion. First, as parliamentarians, we need to work to pass a climate accountability act. Canada still does not have climate legislation. It is all well and good to make commitments at the international level by setting targets that change every two or three days, but we still need to work together if we want to pass binding, transparent and responsible legislation.

That does not mean putting an end to any industry that is good for Canadians and Quebeckers. Rather, it means changing that industry, helping it to evolve and making a transition to something greener, which will help us meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

According to statistics and scientists, as it now stands, we are not going to meet those targets because of our polluting industries. We need to change our way of doing things and move toward greener energy production. Unfortunately, that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I apologize for interrupting the member, but her time is up.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Yellowhead.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, today, I am speaking to Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act and to some of the bill's flaws, not least of which is the vital role our oil and gas sector plays and the role it will play in getting us to net zero.

When the Liberals first introduced the bill to the House back in November 2020, they introduced it primarily as a political wedge. I want to be clear that although we are opposed to this legislation, the Conservatives do support the aspirations of reaching net zero by 2050. We proposed an amendment to the legislation to recognize the importance of the role of oil and gas in reaching net zero. This position is also consistent with the Liberal Minister of Natural Resources's comments. Without this amendment, I cannot support the legislation.

The reality is that the Conservatives want to reduce our emissions, as most Canadians do, and we join Canadians in the goal to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Where we differ from the Liberals is how we get there.

While the Liberals are content to raise taxes on Canadians, making everything like home heating, groceries and driving to work more expensive, the Conservatives believe there is a better way, one that does not penalize the average Canadian, the very people the Liberals are claiming to help.

The Conservatives are the party of conservation. We want to conserve low tax rates for future generations, we want to conserve economic opportunity and we want to conserve our environment. These are all elements of our plan to secure the future.

When I talk about conserving the environment, I mean that on a number of fronts. The overarching goal of this legislation is to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, and balancing carbon emissions from industry is at the forefront.

However, another aspect less talked about is the environmental conservation of our national parks and protected lands that, when properly taken care of, also help us in lowering emissions by acting as carbon sinks. The leading cause of emissions coming from our national parks is forest fires. Unfortunately, forest fires devastate large areas of land far too often and when fires erupt, they exponentially emit carbon as the fire grows.

One thing that contributes to the large size of forest fires when they occur in the western part of the country is the infestation of mountain pine beetles. These beetles are an invasive species that destroy thousands of pine trees every year. When these trees die, they naturally emit carbon and the dried brush from standing or fallen trees will rapidly burn in the event of a forest fire. Mountain pine beetles are causing great damage along the eastern slopes of the rockies and the government must take action to control this invasive species and save our pine trees.

With investments in forest fire management and technology to extinguish these fires when they do occur, we can help curb emissions from forest fires and protect our parks. My riding of Yellowhead is home to Jasper National Park, one of the largest and most beautiful parks in Canada. It is also a UNESCO World Heritage site.

There is often a misconception that the Conservatives do not care about the environment when, in fact, that is not the case at all. My riding, by percentage, in the last election was one of the most Conservative in the country, and voters were interested in our plan for the environment. The narrative that the Conservatives do not care about the environment must change, because it is simply false.

Recently I visited Enhance Energy's carbon sequestration wells in Clive, Alberta, and was beyond impressed with the emerging technology it was using to safely sequester carbon. This one company alone has sequestered enough carbon in its wells that is equivalent to the carbon emissions saved by every electric car on the road in Canada today. Any of my colleagues who are listening and are intrigued by this, post-COVID, I encourage them to visit and see the carbon sequestration wells in person.

This technology has huge benefits and is very exciting. This Alberta homegrown innovation will change the world in how we safely sequester emissions and store carbon.

The path forward to achieving net-zero by 2050 will not be an easy one, but with the political will, innovative science and smart investments, it is a worthy goal we can achieve.

My riding has business owners, environmental stewards, farmers, oil and gas, and other natural resource workers. It does not matter what line of work they are in, even the vast majority of resource-sector workers I meet deeply care about the environment, because they know that sustainability is important. As we transition to a greener economy, these workers must not be left behind.

I recently have noticed a change in the Liberals' messaging on our oil and gas sector. The throwaway line that they used when talking about oil and gas, and to justify the purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline, was that the economy and environment went hand in hand. Now they are not even using that line. Instead, they are avoiding talking about the economic benefits of our natural resource sector altogether.

As exemplified in our new Conservative plan to secure the environment, the Conservatives know that the economy and environment go hand in hand, which is why our plan is to cut emissions without cutting jobs.

My colleague, the member for Edmonton Manning, recently put forward his Motion No. 61, which I am proud to jointly second and support. I mention this, because I believe my position on both Motion No. 61, a motion calling on the House to support oil and gas, and Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, are intertwined. If we achieve net zero by 2050 by simply transferring our emissions to other countries, potentially adding to world-wide emissions, commonly known as carbon leakage, destroying our economy in the process, what have we really accomplished?

Canadian oil is extracted with the highest environmental and labour standards in the world. If we phase-out our oil and gas industry but continue to import oil from other countries with lower environmental and labour standards, we are hurting both our economy and the environment. It just does not make sense. Instead, we need to champion our oil and gas industry and recognize the vital role it plays within our economy now and the vital role it will continue to play into the future.

Fooling Canadians by offloading our emissions to other countries through carbon leakage is a serious concern for the Conservatives. Addressing it is an important element of our plan to safeguard the environment. As we work toward net zero by 2050, we must remain conscience of not only the goal of reaching net zero, but cutting the 1.6% of global emissions for which we are responsible. The Conservative plan to introduce carbon-border tariffs aims to stop carbon leakage and ensures we are truly cutting our emissions and not transferring them elsewhere.

When I read Bill C-12, I read the word “accountability” eight times within the bill. However, for a bill that talks so much so much about accountability, it lacks it. The bill would ensure the accountability for future governments, but what about the current government?

The Liberals have failed to meet their 2020 targets by 123 million tonnes. The aspirations of the bill to achieve net zero is clear, but the Liberal plan is not working. The Auditor General's report revealed that the Liberal's carbon tax was in fact not revenue neutral, and the federal government collected $225 million more than it paid out in carbon tax rebates. Under the Liberals, we see higher taxes and higher emissions. We need an environmental plan that works for Canadians, a plan that puts more money back in their pockets, while reducing emissions, and a plan that creates jobs in emerging sectors.

While I agree with the aspirations of the bill to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, I cannot vote in favour of it without recognizing the importance that our natural resource sector would play in getting us there.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to touch on two points.

First, I agree that one of the problems with Bill C-12 is that there is no accountability mechanism and no obligation to deliver. Does my colleague know of a mechanism that could be added to the bill to create an obligation to deliver?

Basically, talking about targets is all well and good, but we need action.

Second, does my colleague agree that we will have to gradually wean ourselves off fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy sectors, or does he think we can continue to throw our lot in with fossil fuels and bank on using carbon capture mechanisms to fix things?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think there is a lot of misconception as to the future of our oil and gas. Are we going to completely eliminate it? Probably not. There are many sides of it that we need to consider, such as using it as a lubricant in the future. We know that we still need to have lubricants, whether it is for our car transmissions, car rear ends or even ball joints, for grease. Could we start looking at other alternatives such as blue hydrogen coming from our natural gas sector? There are other potential alternatives.

Will we start looking at minimizing the amount of consumption? Absolutely. However, we need to look at some of the other positives that we get from the oil and gas industry in the future. It is just not that simplistic that we will be able to remove it completely. That is a big misconception.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, we all know that it is easy to say we have a target for 2050 of net zero, which is a long way away, but we have had experience in the past. The Conservatives have already let people down. The Harper government got rid of the Kyoto accord targets. The members talk about 2050, but we do have a scientific imperative standing in front of with 2030 coming up.

Does the member agree that there needs to be a firm target of at least 40% for 2030? We can argue about how to get there, but do the Conservatives agree to that kind of target?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, definitely we need to start looking at targets. I am not so certain as to whether it should be defined as 40% or what number we should look at, but to start reducing our emissions and getting to carbon neutral by 2050, we need to have a plan that is going to adjust and we need to ensure it is a reasonable plan. As we have seen from the Liberals in the last few years, they have not come anywhere close to their emissions targets. Therefore, to set targets that are not realistic does not help.

To ensure we have a realistic target, we need to have a proper plan that can show how we will get there. One of the problems with the bill is that it does not show any plan to reach any of these targets. That is the reason why I do not support it.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, in December of last year, the government, without any consultation with provinces, said that it would raise the carbon tax to $170 a tonne, after it promised it would not do that in the 2019 election. Then, on Monday of last week, we had a budget that said it would increase the targets to 36%. Late last week, we heard about a range of 40% to 45%, and the minister specifically cited that the methane regulations may be a target for helping to bridge the gap.

Does the member find that the government has any credibility when it comes to working with the provinces or does he just simply not trust it with its plans on the environment?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very easy to say no, because the government has failed on so many attempts. These are nothing more than just election promise words for the Liberals to say, “Don't worry, we're going to have a plan, keep putting faith in us. and trust us.” That does not build any confidence whatsoever nor does it guarantee that they will meet any of these emission targets. All they are doing is throwing out numbers, hoping people will believe them.

No, I do not believe the Liberals have a plan that will reach any of these targets to which they are trying to get.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to finally be able to speak to Bill C-12, the climate accountability act to reach net-zero. It was introduced in November, and now we find ourselves with a time allocation. This really does need to be debated in this place.

I know how very carefully the parliamentary secretary and the minister, when they speak of all parties in this place ready to support this bill, somehow do not mention the Green Party of Canada, the party that is known and trusted by Canadians, more than any other, to put climate at the centre of what we do to ensure sustainability and that future generations have a hospitable climate, one that will sustain the human civilization going forward.

Therefore, when we hear the words “climate accountability act” and “net-zero by 2050”, we think they really do sound good. I know a lot of people will be stunned to realize that I, as someone who has worked on the climate issue for as long as I have, starting in 1986 on the early stages of negotiating the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and being at the Rio Earth Summit, and so many other conferences I do not even want to go back and remember them all, I am struggling with how I am going to vote on this bill. How is it that I could think that it could be dangerous?

I will explain how that is, and I will make my comments in two parts. The first will look to the science. This is all about the science. We have to get it right. There are such things as carbon budgets, which are not included in this legislation. We know that the Liberals are talking about net-zero by 2050.

Let me reference for a moment Greta Thunberg. We all know she is a very dedicated climate activist. Greta Thunberg says net-zero by 2050 is “surrender” because it gives politicians the illusion that we have time, we have a couple of decades, we can work toward this and we can figure it out. That is not the case anymore.

Let me quote someone the Liberals will have heard of. In his book Value(s): Building a Better World for All, Mark Carney explains carbon budgets probably better than anyone I have ever heard. On page 273 of the book, he writes, “The carbon budget to limit temperature rises to below catastrophic levels is rapidly being exhausted. If we had started in 2000, we could have hit the 1.5°C objective by halving emissions every 30 years. Now, we must halve emissions every 10 years. If we wait another four years, the challenge will be to halve emissions every year. If we wait another eight years, our 1.5°C carbon budget will be exhausted.”

How can we have a climate accountability act that has its first milestone year at 2030? Clearly, that is too late.

I would like to share a quotation from French President Emmanuel Macron. This quote is from a speech he delivered at last week's Earth Day summit hosted by U.S. President Joe Biden.

Here is what he said: “We have to drastically increase everyone's targets if we want to achieve the 1.5-degree objective.... 2030 is the new 2050.”

They cannot get much clearer than that: 2030 is the new 2050. We have legislation here that tells us we will be all right, we will have our first milestone year in 2030. That is past the time of any accountability for the current government and past any accountability for probably the next one too. What we need to do is make this bill work.

I think it can be fixed, but I am very worried because the Minister of Environment and Climate Change asked me and the Green Party to propose amendments back in December. We have proposed the key thing, and without consulting Parliament, without waiting until we got to second reading and committee, he has already negated one of the key things that needs to be fixed in this bill.

Turning now from the science to the policy, there are climate accountability acts in about 12 countries around the world right now. The gold standard is the law the U.K. brought in in 2008. It set up an expert, independent, arm's-length group, a climate accountability institute that actually advises government as a whole, not just the minister and not just a multi-stakeholder group, but an expert group with arm's-length capacity.

That was one of my key recommendations to the minister, to make sure that the group advising the minister is an expert group made up of scientists. Without waiting to go to committee to see if my amendment might pass, we now have an appointed group, and it is a multi-stakeholder group, without independence from government, advising the minister and creating delays in the way it negotiates and moves forward.

To have a 2025 milestone year, we need to do one thing and we need to know the minister is open to it, and he has already told the media that he is not open to it. We need to have the target for 2025 baked into the legislation before third reading. Now that the government says it is heading to 45%, which is far too weak if we are looking at the science, and I will get back to this if I have a moment, we need to at least say that by 2025 we will have a 25% reduction, or even 15%.

That needs to be baked into the legislation, so we have some accountability. The way the legislation works, it also says that two years before we hit the first milestone, we would have the first reporting event. That would be very consistent with the Paris agreement and the requirement for a global stock-take year in 2023. To get on the right page for that, we really do need a 2025 milestone year.

Again, looking at climate accountability legislation all around the world, something else they have in common is that the first milestone year every time is within five years. The U.K., as I mentioned, first passed legislation in 2008. It also passed legislation in 2019, and its first milestone year was 2025. New Zealand brought in its legislation, and within five years of it passing, 2025 was its first milestone year.

It is unfortunate that we hear Liberal after Liberal using talking points that mislead this House. I do not blame them personally. I think the bad advice is coming from within Environment Canada itself. I do not understand how the department is unfamiliar with what we negotiated in Paris.

However, I can be very clear that 2030 is not the only year referenced in the Paris agreement. It also has 2023 as the first global stock-take year, and under agreements negotiated in Paris, specifically the COP 21 decision document at paragraph 24, Canada was supposed to improve our NDC in calendar 2020. We ignored that requirement.

Now we are seeing improvement in Canada's stance based on the announcements the Prime Minister made last week at President Biden's climate summit, but they are clearly inadequate. The minimum Canada should be doing is 60% below 2005 levels by 2030.

Can we fix Bill C-12? I think we can, but the reality, and it is a harsh reality, is that the suggested amendments we have made so far have already been rejected by the Liberal government. Now we have a five-hour closure on debate. I very much fear that I will not be able to vote for Bill C-12 as is, not because I do not want climate action, but because, as Greta Thunberg says, without a near-term target that is meaningful, net-zero by 2050 is surrender.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the government, in bringing forward this legislation, is responding positively to what the population as a whole wants to see.

In the past, the government has indicated that legislation might not necessarily be perfect, and that is one of the reasons we want to go into committee, so we can listen to the amendments being brought forward to improve the legislation. However, the idea of net-zero and the creation of an advisory committee is very positive.

Is the hon. member familiar with some of the appointments that have been made to the advisory committee? If she is, could she provide her comments on the quality of the appointments?

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

Madam Speaker, I will not comment on the individuals involved. Many of them are colleagues or friends. It does not matter, the structure is wrong. This is not a time for a multi-stakeholder group. I strongly recommend, and I have done so to the minister, that the government bring back the national round table on the environment and the economy, which was killed by Stephen Harper in the omnibus budget, Bill C-38. We do like multi-stakeholder advice, and we like multi-stakeholders at committees, but this is not a place for a multi-stakeholder committee. This is a place for a panel of experts to make sure the government understands the science, because so far it does not seem to.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the member's references to Mark Carney's book, which I have recently finished reading. I have to say, concerning his call to more action on the environment and also greater fiscal responsibility, he seems to be putting himself outside of his chosen party on a number of issues. I hope the members who fawned over his speech at the convention would consider reading his book and absorbing at least some of his insights.

I want to ask the member about the Conservative amendment, which formally, under the rubrics of debate, we are considering right now. It is an amendment that calls for the government to take a second run at the bill. The Conservative Party and the Green Party might not agree on the precise conclusions, but the amendment calls for the government to implement a real plan that recognizes the challenges of climate change and also to come up with a way of integrating concern for the economy and the environment.

What is the member's take specifically on the amendment from the Conservative House leader?

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

Madam Speaker, I am afraid I tend to agree with the Liberals on this one in that it would have the effect of killing the bill. If the bill is not going to be fixed, we might as well kill it, but it is too soon to decide to do that.

I do note, by the way, that the Liberals managed to have Mark Carney speak to the convention without letting him give an actual speech. He was interviewed by the hon. member for Toronto Centre. I had looked forward to hearing his words on many things. I found the book Value(s) extremely significant. It would be worth reading for every Canadian because it really speaks to a new way of governing to build our society back better on many levels. I regretted that he was only interviewed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have time for a brief question.

The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation, which was very interesting.

A Conservative member who spoke earlier seemed to really emphasize carbon sequestration and all the ways carbon can be stored underground. I would like to hear her comments on that.

Furthermore, a number of environmental organizations have pointed out the shortcomings in the bill, including the absence of any obligation to achieve results and the lack of binding measures. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about establishing accountability mechanisms and having the government's measures reviewed by an independent authority based on the achievement—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I apologize for interrupting the member, but I had asked for a brief question.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for a brief answer.

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

Madam Speaker, on carbon, there is never any harm in looking at speculative technologies, but this one so far has proven to be very expensive and does not work terribly well, whereas renewable energy works very well. We need to move fast.

As to the accountability mechanisms, there are none in this bill. If the minister fails 10 years from now, all he or she has to do is say sorry and give the reasons for the failure.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will advise the next speaker that I will unfortunately have to stop him, but he will be able to continue his speech after question period.

Resuming debate, we have the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly, to Bill C-12 and the amendment the Conservative House leader has put forward.

We have been critical of many aspects of this bill from the beginning for a specific reason. It is because this bill is another signalling bill without substance. Too often, we have seen that on many important economic, environmental and cultural challenges facing the country, the government opts to signal its concern for the issue without putting in place a real or effective plan. The government's response to the environmental challenges we face has so often involved seeking to raise taxes and seeking to signal its concern through ever-changing evaluation metrics and targets without ever actually putting in place structures that would bind them or that would effectively address the global challenge this represents.

That is why Conservatives have put forward a constructive amendment, which recognizes the realities of the challenges associated with climate change. Certainly we would hope the government members vote for this amendment. To vote against this amendment would imply they do not believe in the science of climate change, since the amendment says right in it that it recognizes the challenge of climate change and the need to address it. Our amendment also highlights the need to integrate a commitment to economic growth with addressing the environmental challenges we face. Fundamentally, Conservatives believe we can do both: that we can work to respond to climate change and that we can build and strengthen our economy in the process.

We hear lip service paid to this idea from various parts of the House, the integration of a concern for the environment and a concern for the economy, but we very rarely see a plan that actually responds to the global challenge and strengthens our economy at the same time. From a Conservative perspective, we are looking at the challenge of climate change as a global challenge. We believe that the specific policy measures we take in response to this global challenge have to have some recognition of the global scope of that problem.

Importantly, that does not mean not acting. Recognizing that Canada represents less than 2% of global emissions is not an excuse to not act, but what it should impel us to do is act in such a way as contributes to the global problem of climate change. I think, most crucially, that should involve developing new technologies and working to promote the deployment of those technologies in a broader way around the world. We are not going to to respond to the global problem of climate change by simply taking action that reduces our emissions here in Canada, if the effect of those emissions reductions is simply greater emissions outside the country.

What we have from the Liberals are policies that kneecap our own industries, but impose no restrictions or additional costs on companies that are producing the same products outside Canada and then exporting those products back to us. In other words, if we are taxing producers in Canada, and as a result of that taxation those producers go outside the country, produce the same products and sell those products to Canadians, we are seeing the same or greater emissions and there is no economic or environmental policy the government is putting in place to deter that practice, it very clearly does not makes sense to, in the name of environmental policy, push producers beyond our borders without actually requiring those reductions.

The Conservative approach to this, as an alternative to this policy of pushing production outside the country but having the same production take place, calls for the development and deployment of new technology that would allow the production of energy in a cleaner way and also for border adjustments. Also, there is a new idea which I think is a very important one, that says that if companies are moving outside Canada and selling their products back to us, there has to be some adjustment at the border to take into consideration that they may not be paying a price on carbon that exists here in Canada.

If we encourage the development of cleaner energy technology in Canada for export around the world, and put in place measures to ensure those who are outside the country selling their products to Canadians do not have some unfair advantage over domestic production, we are actually recognizing the global scope of the problem.

With over 98% of the world's emissions happening outside of Canada, the development and deployment of new technology here will really make that critical difference. We are not seeing a plan like this from the Liberals. They are content to impose additional costs and requirements on Canadian industry and Canadian consumers without treating the global nature of the problem, which is the companies from abroad that have lower environmental standards selling their products into Canada. That does not make any sense. It looks like we are going after Canadian industry to make a point, without actually targeting the global nature of the problem. That is why the Conservatives have presented an alternative plan. That is why we have presented a constructive amendment here at second reading.

The other issue our amendment highlights is this. In addition to not having a clear plan to address the global challenge we face, the Liberals have already put in place individuals on the advisory body that is contemplated in this bill. How disrespectful to Parliament can they be by already putting in place a panel that is envisioned by the legislation? That presumes the legislation will pass in its present form.

I look forward to continuing these remarks at the next available opportunity.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It will not be right after Question Period; it will be the next time the bill is before the House and the hon. member will have four minutes.

Statements by Members, the hon. member for Burnaby North—Seymour.

The House resumed from April 27 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 Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has four minutes left in his speech.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the government House leader will come back with further comments to the House in the future.

The issue we are debating is the government's failing response to the climate challenges that Canada and the world face. Canada, under the Liberal government, does not have an effective response plan, and Conservatives have offered an effective alternative that recognizes the truly international dimensions of this crisis.

What we have not heard from the government is a plan that takes into consideration the international dimensions by having appropriate adjustments at borders. Instead, what we have is the government punishing domestic industry in a way that pushes development outside the country but does not actually address the problem.

The government's approach imposes regulation as well as taxation on Canadian industry, but if the same investors move that industrial activity outside the country and then sell back into Canada, they are not subject to any such mechanisms. The system the government has put in place simply creates incentive to push economic activity out of the country rather than respond to these challenges.

We have a government that is very happy to import foreign oil, for example, while making the development of a domestic energy sector very difficult. For the first time, Conservatives are proposing a plan for Canada that takes into consideration this inequality. It says that the same standards would have to apply to products imported into Canada as are being applied in the case of production taking place in Canada.

I know this responds to what my constituents are saying and to what is frankly a source of significant frustration for my constituents. They ask the question of why our oil and gas sector is subject to further and further taxation and inconsistent regulatory burdens, and why, in cases where projects have been approved, the government allows lawless acts of protest to disrupt projects that have already been approved from moving forward. Why is that happening?

On the other hand, we do not hear the same criticisms about the environmental crimes, in many cases, in other parts of the world, as well as violations of human rights taking place in the production of things that then come to Canada. This is where we need to be rethinking our approach and where we have proposed a rethinking of the approach that emphasizes the global nature of the challenge we face.

As we look at Bill C-12, the government's request for a reporting framework, again there is no clear plan on actually responding to the environmental challenges we face. We are also very frustrated that despite the Liberals coming into Parliament and saying that they are going to look at these issues in good faith and consult with other parties, they have already presumed to declare who will be on the advisory board that is supposed to be set up by this legislation.

We have to look at this bill in a context where the government seems to have already preprogrammed certain decisions that it has not been forthright in communicating to the House at all. On that basis, Conservatives have put forward a reasonable amendment to challenge aspects of this framework, to challenge the failure to take into consideration the international dimension of the challenge and the unfortunate decision of the government to announce in advance who is going to be on the panel without consulting.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I think I was here to hear the first half of it.

As we talk about our accountability toward getting to net-zero and how we are going to measure that, the government has put a policy in place here, a framework for exactly how that will happen. I know the member is critical of that. However, in all fairness, the Conservatives do not really have a great reputation, as it stands, for being able to properly gauge the direction of environmental legislation of the day. It was not that long ago that the member spoke very adamantly against a carbon tax, and now his party has decided that it is the best way to go.

I am just worried. If we take this member's advice, will he not realize, a couple of years from now, once the public opinion is fully there, that, again, the Conservatives had it wrong?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government's proposal is to impose taxation on Canadians as a proposed solution to environmental challenges, for the government to take that money and redistribute it according to its own choices, including to include various public works programs in that spending.

Conservatives have been consistent in opposing that Liberal approach. We have proposals that take into consideration the global dimension of the challenges, as well as leaving resources in the pockets of Canadians in order to support their response to environmental challenges. I would submit that this is very different. It is also lowering the price overall. Without taking the same punitive approach, the taxation-oriented approach the Liberals have, we have independent agencies showing that we will achieve environmental targets.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I did hear some rather positive points as I was listening to his speech. For example, he said that the same standards would have to apply to products imported as are being applied in the case of production taking place in Canada. I think that the reciprocity of standards is very important. However, today we are talking about Bill C-12 on reducing greenhouse gases.

Does the member not think that clear standards should be set in Bill C-12? Is he open to adopting amendments to set such standards and allow for an independent oversight authority other than just the minister?

Does the member not think that there is a way to support his constituents by maintaining investments in his region without insisting that these investments be made in the oil sands?

This is not a judgment, but is now not the time to invest in the transition and in other energy sources? The Bloc Québécois will support the people in his region, but we also think that starting the transition is imperative.

What are the member's thoughts on this?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will focus on the last point first.

The way we can respond effectively to the environmental challenges we face, recognizing the increasing global need for energy, is to leverage the technology that is being generated through the development of our energy sector, technology that is constantly, aggressively improving the performance of the sector, and work to make that technology available as part of development around the world.

We are not going to address the challenges we face by expecting Canadians and people around the world to stop using energy. If we stopped using energy tomorrow, the rest of the world would still be increasing its use of energy. It is the technology we generate. It is the use of cutting-edge techniques, like carbon capture and storage projects in my riding. It is the—

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

We have to give an opportunity for more questions. The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his interesting speech.

I hear the Conservatives criticizing the Liberals for introducing a bill when we are not even on track to meet our 2030 targets, targets that herald back to the good old Conservative days. We just continue to move in a direction that promised that the environmental crisis we are in is going to continue.

Would the member admit that the Conservatives lack total credibility around having an active climate plan that is actually going to get us where we need to get to save the planet?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member will not be surprised to find that I do not agree with her characterization of things. We can debate some aspects of the policies, but at the end of the day, it should be remembered that the last Conservative government was the first government in Canadian history that actually reduced Canada's greenhouse gas emissions output.

Members of the NDP may say it was not enough, but it was the first government in history, unlike the Liberals, who signed the Kyoto Protocol and did absolutely nothing and saw emissions increase. Conservatives have been ahead of the Liberals in terms of actually delivering the goods when it comes to these issues. We continue to see all hat and no cattle from the Liberals when it comes to really achieving results—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the climate change challenge has often been compared to the moon shot of the 1960s. The moon shot involved a redoubling of resolve after a difficult and halting start to the space race in the United States. The moon shot was very much about targeting a seemingly out-of-reach objective on a seemingly impossible timeline: namely, reaching the moon before the end of the decade of the 1960s.

By all accounts, the scientists and engineers who came together to achieve this astounding historic feat that was the moon landing came up against tremendous technological challenges, brick walls that no doubt appeared insurmountable, especially on a tight timeline. NASA scientists were up against a target for which they were held to account by a president who created a public expectation of success with American national security and American pride on the line.

The key words here are “public expectation of success”. That is what the net-zero emissions accountability act is all about: a public expectation of success backed by a legal mechanism aimed at holding successive federal governments to account for fulfilling that expectation.

In the same way NASA scientists followed a critical path informed by experts for reaching their target, Bill C-12 will require the government to set greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets informed by experts, plans for achieving those targets informed by experts, regular reporting by the government on its progress in achieving its targets, regular assessments by the government on the effectiveness of its measures for achieving its targets, and regular independent analysis by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development of the government's 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.

More specifically, the government's progress report must provide an update on the progress it has made toward achieving its relevant milestone GHG target and an update on the implementation of its climate plan: that is, the federal measures, sectoral strategies and federal government operations strategies aimed at reaching the relevant milestone target. These progress reports must be prepared no later than two years before the beginning of the relevant milestone year so that adjustments can be made to these measures and strategies.

For its part, the assessment report must contain a summary of Canada's GHG emissions inventory, a statement on whether Canada has achieved its national GHG target for the milestone year and an assessment of how federal measures, sectoral strategies and federal government operations strategies described in the relevant emissions reduction plan contributed to Canada's efforts to achieve the national GHG target for that year.

The strength of this framework is that it does not rely solely on the government's own assessment of its progress and the effectiveness of its climate action plan. It allows for multiple expert voices to weigh in, in a sense to write the government's report card on climate change. In other words, the government will not be grading itself.

Incidentally, the space race achieved more than a target. It achieved a government-driven acceleration of technological progress and economic growth. Similarly, Bill C-12 is not only about meeting a life-saving target for the planet. It is ultimately about driving technological innovation and economic growth associated with the proliferation of the green products and services the world increasingly wants and needs.

There is, however, one difference that I see between the moon shot and the present task at hand. In a sense, the moon shot was a closed system involving a singular locus of scientific activity and a well-defined technological focus, all within the purview of a dedicated government program that obviously involved numerous partnerships.

The quest to meet targets around greenhouse gas emissions reductions in Canada is, in a sense, organizationally more complex, with more moving parts. Achieving net-zero emissions involves technological progress in many areas and simultaneous co-operative actions by many orders of government, where the degree of commitment to the goal of fighting climate change is not always shared equally across jurisdictions.

Added to this is the fact that the federal government lacks exclusive jurisdiction and power in the matter. We are a federation, not a unitary state. Nonetheless, our government has been able to exercise meaningful leadership on climate change.

We have been a government of firsts. Our government was the first federal government to put a national price on carbon and fight for the constitutional right to do so all the way to the Supreme Court. Our government was the first to develop a clean fuel standard.

Our government was the first to have the courage to attempt to negotiate a pan-Canadian framework on climate change with the provinces and territories, and we were successful, thanks to the Prime Minister's political will and capital and the can-do determination of the member for Ottawa Centre, who was the Minister of Environment and Climate Change at the time, but, governments change and can renege, and we have seen this happen.

Our government was the first to provide financial incentives for the purchase of a zero-emission vehicle. Our government was also the first to require environmental assessments of large energy projects to factor in their GHG emissions. Our government was the first to set a net-zero emissions target, and our government is now the first to create a legal accountability framework for setting and achieving interim GHG targets on the way to net-zero emissions.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

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

I have two quick questions. Do we have a new environment minister in Canada? On Earth Day here in Quebec and in the media it was the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who is also the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who came to sell us on Canada's new measures. I was wondering about that.

Also, the possible new environment minister mentioned something rather surprising on Radio-Canada. In the past year, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have increased, as they have in previous years, and the new environment minister said that was good news. He saw good news in that. That is newspeak to me.

What does my colleague think of that?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the exact quote the member is referring to.

As far as the Minister of Canadian Heritage is concerned, when there are important announcements such as the budget or major steps when it comes to the environment, the entire Liberal caucus looks after delivering the message. There is nothing extraordinary about that.

As members know, many members of cabinet have expertise in the environment. In fact, the Liberal caucus is very concerned about the issue.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a quick question of my colleague with regard to some of the issues we have with climate change and the opportunity for electric vehicles. One of the things I have been raising recently is a national auto strategy. The United States has moved ahead quite successfully with a lot of investment, and Canada is lagging even on a battery plan.

Why not create a national auto policy that sets targets and goals to achieve low emissions and produce electric vehicles, especially right now, given the fact we need to compete against not only the United States, but also Mexico and the rest of the world?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I think it is a very good development that we have a government in the United States that is committed to environmental action. Obviously, it makes things much easier to be working with a like-minded government on a continental basis.

In terms of zero-emission vehicles, the member may know, as I know the industry is very important to him and his riding, that the environment committee of the House of Commons just completed a study on zero-emission vehicles and made a number of recommendations. I believe one of them was very much in line with what the member just mentioned. We will see, going forward, how we can work with auto makers and battery makers to make Canada a leader in the area of zero-emission vehicles.

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

Madam Speaker, at this point, around the world there are 11 countries that have passed climate accountability legislation. Canada's will hold the distinction of being the weakest. If we are looking for a moon shot, and if we are shooting for a moon, this is the equivalent of a stepladder.

Does my hon. colleague not think it would have been wise for the federal government to consult, particularly with the gold standard? The country with the climate accountability that has worked for the longest and the best is the U.K. The legislation before us today differs in substantial ways from theirs, particularly by not having an independent expert group that monitors government progress and reports to the nation, as opposed to a multi-stakeholder advisory group for the minister. Would the member not agree it would be better to try to base our bill on what has worked elsewhere?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's views and insight carry a lot of weight in this chamber. As the member knows, the bill will hopefully be passed at second reading and make its way to the environment committee, where amendments will no doubt be tabled and we can have discussion about the points the member has raised.

However, it is important to acknowledge that there is much room for expert advice in this bill, and this is key. It is important that we do rely on expert advice and indeed that any consultative body be not just a diverse group of individuals who represent the country the way this House does. We need also some expertise to move forward, so I appreciate the member's point.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the draft legislation of Bill C-12, with regard to net-zero emissions. I am also very pleased to highlight some of our party's positions, which are set out in our position paper, entitled “Secure the Environment”. With a Conservative government, Canada will meet its Paris Agreement targets, importantly, without killing jobs or taxing an already over-taxed population. Our plan will help the environment while also helping Canadians succeed in every region of the country and in all sectors.

The Liberal plan is based on an ever-increasing taxation plan that, while being presented as being revenue neutral to the government, is certainly not revenue neutral to the taxpayer. At best it is a tax scheme that redistributes wealth away from those living in parts of the country where greater energy consumption is a fact of life. Why are they being punished for that?

The Conservative plan, on the other hand, is much fairer in that it sets aside some of the money that each consumer will pay for energy consumption into a personal savings account that the consumer can spend or invest as they see best for their own purposes on green options.

The big distinction between the Liberal carbon tax and the Conservatives' plan to secure the environment is that Conservatives trust Canadians to do the right thing, spend their money wisely, be incentivized to think green, act responsibly with regard to the environment and do their part. We all want to do that. The Liberals, on the other hand, think that government knows best. We think educated Canadians know best.

Bill C-12, while being promoted as a significant step forward in the fight against climate change, is really more symbolic than substantive. It might give the casual political observer the impression that something significant is happening, but keep in mind that Bill C-12 follows up from Canada's dismal record of setting, and then missing, its emissions reductions targets.

What does Bill C-12 do? I think this is important and should be read into the record, so let us take a look at section 16. This is under the heading “Failure to achieve target”, and it states:

If the Minister concludes that Canada has not achieved its national greenhouse gas emissions target for a milestone year or for 2050, as the case may be, the Minister must, after consulting with the ministers referred to in section 12, include the following in the assessment report:

(a) the reasons why Canada failed to meet the target;

(b) a description of actions the Government of Canada is taking or will take to address the failure to achieve the target; and

(c) any other information that the Minister considers appropriate.

What happens if we miss the target? Not much, we just set another target. We create more reports, and the conversation just continues as though nothing happened. If anything, this would help Canada's pulp and paper industry as more and more reports are being printed.

Canada is a federal country, as has been noted by some of the previous speakers, with parliamentary sovereignty shared among two levels of government. Much of what is needed to be accomplished in protecting the environment falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces under section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, property and civil rights within the province.

The federal government cannot do it on its own. It must work with the provinces. Sadly, the Liberal government's record is one of being sued by the provinces. The federal government won the last round, so I guess congratulations are in order, but Canadians are wondering why intergovernmental affairs on something as important as the environment needs to resort to the courts in the first place.

Why does the federal government not work with the provinces and come to a consensus on how to move forward? Conservatives understand the significance of that, and we will work with the provinces. Conservatives also recognize that the fight against global climate change is, in fact, global.

Canada cannot do it on its own. If it is global, after all, solutions also must be global. Canada is a large expanse of land. It is in the northern hemisphere. It is cold, and people must travel a lot and heat their homes and offices. That is just a fact of life in Canada.

Canada produces only a small fraction of the total world's greenhouse gas emissions, something often overlooked. Canadians want to do their part. We are inventive, we have great universities, we are leaders in technological advances and with strategic partnerships, we can develop and export green technology around the globe, not only for our own use domestically but internationally. We are a trading nation, but that trade must be fair. We have to be on an even playing field and if we are to impose tough environmental standards on ourselves, and I agree that we must, then it is only fair that others who trade with us should be held to the same or comparable standards.

Producers in countries with emission reductions targets and mechanisms compatible with our own would be exempt. Countries that do not and have high-emission reductions standards would have to pay. That way, the Conservative plan would secure both the environment and Canadian industry and jobs and would urge our American trading partner, our biggest trading partner, to adopt the same approach.

I want to talk about the oil and gas sector. Canada is a big producer, but also a responsible producer. We have the best minds in the world working on cleaner energy production, and that applies not only to renewable energy but also the more traditional oil and gas extraction, production, processing and delivery. We are a leader in all of that. To say that this sector needs to be phased out misses the reality of an ever-improving industry and the very obvious fact that the world needs Canada's oil and gas.

The International Energy Agency has projected that demand for oil will remain high for decades, and this is particularly true with the downturn in U.S. shale production. The world needs our oil and we need to produce it responsibly. We do not need to be talking about phasing it out.

The government's stated goal in phasing out oil and gas also overlooks the fact that since 1998, investment and production of Canada's oil sands is one of driving forces behind Canada's economic growth, and that must be true as we look to a pandemic recovery plan as well.

I also want to talk about LNG. The province of British Columbia is a big producer of natural gas and it can be a big tool in Canada helping the world become cleaner. Natural gas burns much cleaner than other fossil fuels and should be used at home and abroad to replace other more polluting energy sources. Using LNG instead of coal cuts emissions in half and countries across Asia are eager to do business with us.

Red tape imposed by the Liberal government means massive projects like Kitimat LNG being in danger of cancellation. This would not only hurt Canadians and Canadian jobs, but the planet. What Canada needs is a government that sends a message to the world that we are proud of our natural resources and that we will develop them in a responsible way. We will attract investment, not scare it off.

When we talk about investment, the Conservatives recognize that industry leaders are already changing their world view and investment strategies to be looked at through an ESG lens, an environmental, social and governance lens. Our plan recognizes that increasingly there is an expectation in global capital markets that ESG is an important factor. Our ESG leadership would help demonstrate the leadership of our oil and gas sector with respect to emissions-intensity reduction.

I want to mention indigenous peoples. We need to acknowledge the historic fact that they have not been treated respectfully. Canada needs to show leadership here as well. The current government has often said that no relationship is more important to it than with our indigenous peoples, but let us look at how that has worked out recently.

Coastal GasLink investors thought they had an understanding with the Wet’suwet’en people, the people whose traditional lands the pipeline will be built across, and who should be benefiting from that investment and structure. However, so far, it is not built and the protects continue—

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

We have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, the member has said that the only difference between the Conservatives' new price on pollution and the existing one this government has is that Conservatives appear to apparently trust Canadians in how to spend their money. Nothing could be further from the truth.

On this side of the House, the government plan was put in place where the money that was collected through the price on pollution would go back equally and be evenly distributed within the province. People get to decide how to spend their money. At least that is the case in Ontario since the federal government stepped in.

The plan from the Conservatives literally takes people's money, puts it into a special bank account and then people have to go to the Conservative Party boutique to decide what green product they will buy. It clearly demonstrates that the Conservatives are trying to control what people can spend their own money on.

Could the member please add some clarity to the fact that he has suggested that the Conservative plan gives people more decision-making power on their?

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives trust Canadians to do the right things, but we have heard from members of the Liberal side of the House that under a Conservative plan, Canadians would actually be incentivized to drive more, burn more to earn more. That is so cynical. That is not the way Conservatives think of our fellow citizens. We are confident that given the right incentives, Canadians will do the right thing. Clearly, government does not always know best. Let individuals make their own decisions.

As to the Liberals' carbon tax plan, it is a redistribution of wealth; it is not—

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

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I hear again and again from the Conservatives that we cannot turn the taps off tomorrow when it comes to the oil and gas industry. I would recommend that we end subsidies to the oil and gas industry immediately, because that money is needed. It is needed to be invested in the transition that must happen and it is imperative. We need to look at where we are going, not just where we are today. It is important for our future on all measures, including the economy and the environment.

Does the member agree that Canada needs to take action now and that the bill needs to have firmer targets that will put us in line with the international commitment that Canada has made?

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

Madam Speaker, the premise of the member's question ignores the fact that a lot of money is being invested in the oil and gas sector by oil and gas companies into cleaner, better and more responsible ways to produce oil and gas. There have been drastic improvements and we should be encouraging that industry to keep on doing that, to keep on becoming cleaner and greener. We should not be talking about phasing them out. There are a lot of jobs, a lot of investment and this is what drives Canada's economy. That is being ignored, sadly.