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.

Public Accounts

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

Mr. Speaker, to refresh the hon. member's memory, Bill C-12, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, was brought forward in 2021 and I voted against it because it would do absolutely nothing toward climate accountability. I know we are not debating climate tonight, but it is coming up.

The Government of Canada just found out from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development that we are not moving in the right direction. We continue to ignore the budget that really matters, which is the carbon budget. Net zero by 2050 is irrelevant if we do not hit the near-term targets by 2030, because then we will be on a trajectory to an unlivable world for our own children. It is an unforgivable and unnecessary failure.

I know the Conservatives are not helping, but I do think the Liberals owe the Conservatives a large thanks, because, if not for the Conservatives, the Liberals would not have any claim to having a better record than anybody else in the history of time.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Whitby for his focus on climate change, which is an issue I would hope that all of us take very seriously.

Bill C-12 set an emissions objective for 2026 and that objective is 20% below 2005 levels. The recent emissions inventory that just came out for 2021 had Canada's emissions at 8.4% below 2005 levels, so we have another 11.6% to go in only five years and yet what we saw in 2021 was that emissions were higher by 1.8% over 2020 levels. Therefore, if emissions are going up and we are trying to hit a target that needs them to go down, how do Liberals make that work?

Online Streaming Act

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

Madam Speaker, I do think we made improvements to the bill. Even one Green Party amendment managed to get in. It was quite a nice change from Bill C-12, the climate accountability act, on which all of my amendments were killed by the NDP-Liberal deal.

I really regret asking this, but I have not had a chance in this session and we are about to rise for the summer, so I will ask my hon. friend, since he has pointed to the confidence and supply agreement, why the NDP decided that dental care was enough and that proportional representation or significant climate improvements would not be included.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here with you and all of my colleagues this evening to debate Bill C-19.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Kitchener Centre this evening.

It is a pleasure to be here this evening to reflect and offer a few thoughts on a piece of legislation that is important not only for those in the chamber but also for all Canadians, coast to coast to coast. It is important in the fact that I, like many of my colleagues here, have children at home, or grandchildren for that matter, and everything we do, as legislators and as members of Parliament, should be through the lens of ensuring that we leave a strong economy and a clean and healthy environment for our children and grandchildren.

I do have some thoughts on where we are in Canada and in the world, and where we are with the economy today. Bill C-19 would continue to put us on a path for strong economic growth, good jobs and employment prospects for Canadians. We would also ensure we are leaving behind a very healthy and clean environment, including reaching our net-zero goals by 2050 and the interim targets which were defined and which we became accountable for through Bill C-12.

As we look at the Canadian economy, with an unemployment rate of 5.2%, we, as a country, through the hard work of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, have recovered 116% of the jobs to where to were pre-COVID. We are on the right path. Our AAA, the big A's and the small a's, for our credit ratings have both been affirmed by all three major agencies: DBRS Morningstar, S&P and Moody's. Our fiscal framework and the finances of this country are strong and continue to be guided by the Minister of Finance, who is doing an incredible job.

We know that in the world today, Canadian families are facing an affordability issue. We have inflation, and we know what has caused the inflation. We do know that COVID-19 has disrupted and continues to disrupt supply chains. Some of them have been fixed, and some of them will take longer. We know the barbaric, unprovoked invasion by the Russian Federation and President Putin into Ukraine has disrupted commodity markets, food markets and, obviously, energy security and affordability. We acknowledge that.

I see it when I go to the grocery store. My wife sees it when she goes to the grocery store to shop for our three children. It is a conversation at home. We all know it. We must be steadfast and resolute as a government to maintain the backs of Canadians as we move forward through this environment, and as we move forward ensuring that Canadians have the resources they need for them and their families.

We can look at our measures for affordability over the years. We have Bill C-19 and the BIA, as well as bills on past budget measures that we have implemented. We can think about the Canada child benefit being indexed, which benefits more than 9 out of 10 Canadian families. It is literally thousands of dollars, tax free, arriving monthly to Canadian families. We can think about the Canada workers benefit, something I have championed day after day, literally helping millions of Canadians and lower-income workers. We can think about early learning and child care plan we have put in place with all provinces and territories. It is something we said we would do. It is a promise made and a promise kept.

My family is going to be putting our almost eight-month-old daughter into day care in the fall. It is something we will see a benefit from. I know that in the province of Ontario, by the end of this year, December 31, we will see a 50% reduction in child care fees. For the area I represent, the York region, just on top of Toronto, this would represent a 50% reduction in child care fees. It would represent literally thousands of after-tax dollars to families in York region and in the city of Vaughan. That is something I applaud.

I am proud to be part of a government that signed on and collaborated with provinces and governments of all political stripes in the provinces. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, which wishes to tear up the early learning and child care agreements, we will maintain those agreements. We will continue to work with those provinces and territories across Canada to maintain these agreements because it is the right thing to do. We will not buy into the gimmicks offered by the Conservative Party of Canada when it comes to affordability.

Our seniors will receive a 10% increase in their old age security in July. That is roughly $800 a year, which will continue to be indexed, for roughly 3.5 million seniors. Again, that is a promise made and a promise kept by this government. I look forward to seeing our senior groups over the summer at the bocce courts, picnics and gatherings.

In the city of Vaughan, we have such a vibrant senior population. I love my seniors. They built this country, and they built the community. Many of them immigrated here with very little education and very little money. They came through Pier 21. They never complained. They worked hard. They saved, and they created a better future for themselves and their families. I just love and applaud them. They have my utmost respect as an individual and as a parliamentarian.

We have committed to dental care, and that is something that I have a very granular story on. A senior came into my office and said she needed help with her dental care. She had an infection. We sent her to York Region where there is a program to assist low-income seniors. Something like that for a senior who is on a very minimal income can really bankrupt them. It could really set a person back.

We cannot have that in our country. We cannot have that in modern-day Canada. That is why we have committed to ensuring that Canadians from coast to coast to coast, such as young children, seniors and all Canadians, will have some sort of coverage or insurance through a $5.3-billion dental care plan that will ensure vulnerable Canadians do not have an issue with getting dental care. The BIA and Bill C-19 really invest in growth, in people and in the green transition.

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not talk about the tradespeople who build this country from coast to coast to coast. My father was a tradesman. He was a carpenter, a labourer, a sheet-metal worker and a roofer. I remember working on weekends with him, when we would do odd jobs for our neighbours and friends, and that was something that taught me the values of hard work, sacrifice and putting aside that dollar, and I see that in our budget.

We came through on a promise made and kept on a labour and mobility tax deduction for tradespeople. Obviously, they have to fit the criteria. This would be $4,000, and it would be a deduction and not a credit. A deduction is very powerful. It would allow tradespeople to move from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction and cover those expenses, which is something I know the Canadian Building Trades Union, LiUNA and the carpenters have advocated for.

I mention those two organizations because both of their training facilities are located in the city of Vaughan in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I meet with those members, and those are the folks who every day, rain, shine or sleet, warm or cold, get up to build our communities and build our critical infrastructure. They are great people.

We need more of those apprenticeships, and when we talk about apprenticeships, our government rolled out a program called the UTIP, the union training and innovation program.

We have committed another $80 million, which is within Bill C-19, to ensure we train literally thousands and thousands more apprentices. I went on a visit to a carpenters union, and I was looking at CCAT. They had their apprentices there, and they were high school students. They were being funded through this UTIP program. It was so great to see these young folks so excited about their futures and so excited about what they are going to do in this country, building the homes and the infrastructure for tomorrow.

The same thing takes place, whether it is at the LiUNA 506 training facility in York Region or LiUNA 183's training facility, with the operating engineers, the painters, and the HVAC and the electrical workers. The same thing takes place, and we are partnering with all of these organizations.

Members will remember that the Conservative Party from prior years attacked private sector unions with Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. The first thing we did in 2015 and 2016 was repeal those bills. We will always stand beside working Canadians, and we will always stand beside those tradespeople who go to work every day to maintain and build and repair our critical infrastructure.

When it comes to homes, I have spoken before about them in the House. I am blessed to live in a very entrepreneurial area. I have to hand it to the entrepreneurs in my area. The Mayor of Vaughan, the hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua, was a member of Parliament for many years. He committed to raising $250 million for our hospital, so this city of 330,000 people has the spirit of generosity.

We, the city of Vaughan and the entrepreneurs, hit the target of $250 million last week. I applaud them. They are entrepreneurs who have taken risks, invested, made money and contributed to their hospital. With that—

Opposition Motion—Subsidies for the Oil and Gas Sector

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to be here and it is wonderful to be speaking to this opposition day motion brought forth by the member for Victoria. I would like to start off by framing this opposition motion the way I view it.

When I think of a trifecta and of the energy industry where we are, both domestically and globally, and how it relates to affordability and where gas prices are today, I think of three things. I think of energy security, which means security of supply and also security of work. I think of energy affordability, which means being able to afford the energy we buy. We have seen the prices of commodities rise globally due to supply chain bottlenecks and the barbaric invasion of Ukraine by Putin's regime, which imperils energy affordability. Then, we talk about decarbonization. I think of energy security, energy affordability and then a longer-term transition where we have decarbonization. That is important because, when we think about it, Canada is an energy leader.

This morning, I spent some time researching what I wanted to say this afternoon. I went to the Natural Resources Canada website and looked at the “Energy Fact Book 2021-2022”. There is some great information out there for policy wonks and people who want to understand just how important both the renewable and non-renewable energy industries are to Canada and Canadians from coast to coast to coast. According to the “Energy Fact Book 2021-2022”, produced on the Natural Resources website, direct to indirect jobs total 845,000 folks. These are hard-working middle-class Canadians who earn their livelihoods from this industry. That is very important to understand.

The investments that are taking place, just on the renewable side or clean energy, have totalled roughly $80 billion to $100 billion every year for the past several years. I was looking at the numbers: the total was $92.1 billion in 2021. That is wind, geothermal, nuclear, hydro, solar and tidal. There is this industry in Canada that we need to be extremely proud of, and that I am very proud to support and to speak about on this opposition day motion, from which Canadians are earning their livelihoods. People are putting their kids in school. They are paying for their hockey lessons and swimming lessons, and we are here to support them.

The opposition day motion talks about ending any sort of financial support to the fossil fuel sector. Our budget that we produced states, I believe, that by 2023 there will be no more direct financial support provided to the energy sector, when we talk about the non-renewable side. When we think about energy security, we must think about Canada and areas such as the western Canada sedimentary basin. I know some of my colleagues on the opposite side come from these areas, and I am from British Columbia originally. There are literally tens of thousands of kilometres of pipeline in that area that are moving gas everywhere in North America. In fact, it is being exported via LNG sites in the United States to Europe at this time and helping our European allies. We need to consider that. It is easy to criticize an industry when one thinks it is fun to do so, and I use that word carefully. I do not. There are 845,000 Canadians tied to this industry.

In reference to the carbon capture tax credit, the third pillar I spoke about was decarbonization. With respect to decarbonization, to me the story is to lower greenhouse gas emissions both domestically and globally. We do not want leakage. We will do that in a manner where we work with stakeholders, including industry. Industry has these roughly 845,000 Canadians who earn their livelihoods from the energy industry. That, to me, is what is called “responsible leadership”. That, to me, is doing the right thing and moving this needle and yardstick in the right direction.

In fact, in our budget, and I look forward to seeing the full details in the fall economic statement, we will introduce a new tax credit for investment in clean technology of 30% for zero-emission technologies and battery storage; in clean hydrogen, which is very exciting; and in blue hydrogen, which I have been learning a lot about in the past few weeks. It is very important.

What I think of as the three pillars are energy security, energy affordability and decarbonization. We are on a track that I am proud of, the emissions reduction plan, which is under the umbrella of Bill C-12: the net-zero accountability act. It is accountable, it is tangible and it lays out a framework so that we can decarbonize our economy and, yes, lower greenhouse gas emissions.

To my hon. colleagues in the NDP and the member for Victoria, when I think about affordability, yes, gas prices are absolutely high. Yes, they are absolutely pinching Canadians. We must demonstrate empathy. I know that. I live in the suburbs outside of Toronto, and everyone in my neighbourhood drives two or three vehicles. They have to get their kids to school and sports and they have to drive them home. We understand that and I understand that, but inflationary forces, be they supply chain bottlenecks or how refineries operate, which would take another hour to explain on the refinery margins part, fracking and NAC and all that stuff, and what has happened with Russia's barbaric invasion of Ukraine have driven up prices across the board. Even the Europeans have reached out by saying they need more gas. That is the energy security component.

On the affordability component for my hon. colleague for Victoria, I think about the Canada child benefit that we introduced in 2015, which all parties voted against, including the New Democratic Party. It benefits the residents of my riding in the amount of over $60 million a month. Almost $7,000 can help a family with one child earning below a certain amount. We returned the old age security and GIS eligibility to age 65. In June and July, over three million Canadians will be receiving a 10% increase in their old age security payments, bringing it up to $766. That is how to help on the affordability side, particularly at a time when inflationary forces are elevated, and we must be cognizant of that.

For seniors who are concerned about how they are going to pay their dental bills, we are going to go down that route, just as we got national child care done after the Conservatives scrapped it many years ago. It is going to benefit Canadians from coast to coast to coast and allow for greater and higher labour force participation rates by parents. It will be a boost to our labour supply and good for our productive capacity. We will do the same thing on dental care. We will ensure seniors and individuals who do not have insurance or a copay will benefit from that. Our government has been there for Canadians, and we need to continue to be there.

On the recovery from COVID, as I said, we were there for Canadians and we had their backs. We must work with all industries as we come out of COVID, which we have been, and we must keep our eye on the ball that climate change continues to be the transition in front of us, independent of what is happening in other parts, because that is where the world is going.

The auto sector right now is investing roughly $515 billion in transforming itself into what I call auto to electric vehicles. That is something we are participating in, and we are at the table. It is important that we remain focused on that front.

When I read the opposition motion that talks about carbon capture, utilization and storage and other forces at play, I ask myself what we are doing in the economy that allows us to decarbonize, which is an element of working with stakeholders and listening, and at the same time making life more affordable for Canadians.

There are things we are doing on the housing front, such as providing 100,000 new homes and doubling housing construction, allowing Canadians to save for a home with the first-time homebuyers' investment vehicle, getting the froth out of the housing market by ending blind bidding and speculation, and banning foreign purchases.

On the affordability front, we are doing what is right for Canadians not only for today, but for the long term. I am so proud of the $10-a-day day care national child care plan modelled after la belle province that is going help residents in my riding because, frankly, it costs $1,500 to $2,000 for a family to put a child in day care in the city of Vaughan and York Region. Those are after-tax dollars, and we are going to help them.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in our emissions reduction plan, budget 2022 and Bill C-12, the net-zero bill, we put forth a number of measures that will continue to reduce our greenhouse gas footprint across this country. We will continue to do the hard work that Canadians expect for a healthy environment and strong economy.

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4, which was adopted in October 2020, created three new temporary recovery benefits to support Canadians who were unable to work for reasons related to COVID-19. Bill C-9 put in place new targeted supports to help businesses through the pandemic with the emergency rent and wage subsidies. Bill C-12 charted a course for clean growth for generations to come by legislating net-zero emissions by 2050. This is essential to avoid the worst impact of climate change, some of which we have seen in British Columbia, and fully seize the economic opportunities that it presents.

There are concerns that private members' bills may not make their way through the House. The reality is that, in the second session, these were in no way impeded by the hybrid process. There were 46 recorded divisions taken on private members' bills and motions. Six received royal assent, and six of the motions were adopted. Of the private members' bills that were passed, five of the bills were introduced by Conservative members and one by a Bloc Québécois member.

These are just a few examples of bills the House passed by working together, but in a physically distanced way. A total of 28 votes took place on opposition day motions. Of the 24 motions they debated, 16 were adopted. As members are aware, House committees also met in a hybrid format during the second session of the 43rd Parliament. The motion before us today would allow this to continue in the 44th Parliament.

Standing committees also played their important accountability function in our system of responsible government by reviewing government bills and estimates and issuing reports on government policy and actions. All of these functions were carried out in a hybrid format, and would be again under the proposed motion.

There are those who argue that conducting parliamentary business using video conference is too impersonal and that the cut and thrust of good debate is lost. I understand these concerns, particularly as a new MP. However, the reality is that COVID-19 is spreading in our communities, and too many people are still being hospitalized. Case counts are not going down.

Members of Parliament must lead by example. We have the means to be flexible and safe in how we conduct our business, and I believe it behooves us to use them. Technology is not perfect, and there is nothing that replaces in-person engagement, but these are extraordinary times, and we must find ways to adapt and to reflect the realities that we face today. Nothing in the motion that we are debating today would limit members' ability to participate in any parliamentary proceedings, and it would in no way infringe on their privilege.

In fact, this motion would facilitate greater participation in the face of ongoing public health restrictions. Members can imagine a scenario where a member has to isolate at home because of potential exposure to COVID-19. In a hybrid model, that member could still participate in House proceedings.

Canadians did not send us to this place to debate our needs as members of Parliament, and they certainly did not elect us to potentially contract and/or transmit COVID-19 in our home communities. They elected us to address the issues that matter most to them and their families, and the government has an agenda to do just that. I am hoping that all members in the House will work together to pass, before the winter adjournment, the crucial legislation the government has forthcoming.

While Canada has the enviable position of having recovered jobs to a level higher than that at the beginning of the pandemic, there are still sectors that are adversely affected by the pandemic and need support, and the government is bringing forward legislation to provide targeted support to the tourism and hospitality sectors and other hard-hit businesses.

Particularly during a global health crisis, it is vital that federally regulated workers have access to 10 paid sick days, so they do not have to make the difficult choice of whether they should go to work sick or not pay their bills. Frontline workers, many of whom live in Vancouver Granville, always deserve our greatest gratitude, especially during a pandemic. This is why it is so disappointing that there are those who are harassing and threatening frontline workers at their places of work. The government will legislate protections for these vital workers and their facilities.

We are so close to finishing this fight against COVID-19. Indeed, this very week we have further reason to be optimistic. Thanks to the government's efforts, vaccines for children aged five to 11 are arriving across this country. As much as we all want to be done with this pandemic, we now have over a year and a half of experience working within it, and we can draw on this experience during the 44th Parliament.

The second session of the 43rd Parliament showed us that a hybrid Parliament, with members participating in person and online, can produce real results for Canadians. It is the safe and responsible thing to do to keep using this flexible approach. For those of us who were not here, we watched with awe as the House functioned remotely.

I encourage all members to join me in supporting this motion.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I would like to welcome my colleague from across the floor, and I congratulate him on his standing in the House for the first time. It is a pleasure to work with you.

I did tremendous work in committee through Zoom last year. In fact, I am happy to speak with my colleague about it. Bill C-12, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, is a bill of which I am very proud. I have worked on other important legislation in committee. We will continue to do so as long as we follow the Public Health guidelines.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank all the members and colleagues who are here with me today. Congratulations to each and every one of them on their election or re-election to this House.

I want to thank the constituents of York Centre who put their trust in me again. I was elected October 2020 and walked into this chamber for the first time exactly one year ago today. I want to thank my daughters Taya and Eden, my parents Uri and Nancy, my family members and my community members who helped me in the brave decision in the middle of a pandemic to stand up for my community.

I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of the motion to implement a hybrid sitting model in the House of Commons. As the 100th woman to step onto this House floor for the first time ever, I do not take it lightly that in this day and age, the role of women, both at home and in the workplace, matters more than ever, and our voices need to be heard in this House during the pandemic and as we move forward.

As we embark on a new parliamentary session, I have reflected on the past months and how we have adapted, as individuals, families and communities, our lives to the realities of the pandemic. I have thought about how we, as members of this parliamentary community, had to adapt our traditional ways of meeting and representing our constituents in order to keep us, our staff and the House of Commons administration safe.

In fact, until this week, that was the only way I knew how to be in this House. I entered in a Zoom Parliament. I worked hard through pieces of legislation with every member in this House, whether it was through committee, caucus meetings or other opportunities via email and separate Zoom meetings to make sure the work of this House got done. We kept Canadians safe, and we moved forward with what our government and this House is meant to do, which is to keep Canada moving forward.

A significant way that we achieved this was with the hybrid system whereby members could participate in person and virtually. That is what we are proposing now. I believe that the development of this hybrid system is a success story and one that should continue in this Parliament.

There are so many reasons that a hybrid system is beneficial. First and foremost, it helps keep us and our support staff safe by following public health guidance. Second, it ensures the participation of all MPs in proceedings and in chamber. Even those across the floor who have tested positive can be part of the parliamentary process. Third, it provides greater work-life balance for us as members of Parliament as we conduct our responsibilities in our constituencies and in Ottawa.

A fourth way in which hybrid sittings are beneficial, and one that is not mentioned as often, are the positive impacts for the environment. It is interesting to ask how a hybrid Parliament could help the environment. This question was asked as part of a study conducted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer just this past February. The study is titled “Cost Estimate of a Hybrid Parliament System” and was requested by Senator Rosa Galvez.

As described on the website of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the report estimated the incremental costs and savings of a hybrid parliamentary system. The significant decrease in travel reduced greenhouse gas emissions and as such, this report also attempted to estimate this associated reduction.

When the findings of the report were released, Senator Galvez stated that this is the first time the PBO assesses the Parliament's climate footprint. This initial analysis found the avoided travels to and from Ottawa would approximate annual reduction in GHG of 2,972 tonnes of CO2 equivalent, savings that are equal to removing 1.5 cars per parliamentarian from circulation each year.

The report offers conservative figures, not my colleagues across the floor, that do not include the use of charter flights by parliamentarians and concepts such as stratosphere GHG emissions of flights, which would effectively double GHG emissions. The PBO report confirms that a hybrid Parliament system is cheaper, more efficient and climate-friendly.

Since 2015, the government has been committed to finding real solutions to help tackle the climate crisis while also creating jobs, strengthening our economy and growing the middle class. How our Parliament works should be part of that solution.

We have put a rising price on pollution that puts money back into the pockets of Canadians. We have made new investments in public transit. We committed to reducing pollution by planting two billion trees and banned harmful single-use plastics to protect our oceans.

Another significant achievement was the passage of Bill C-12, a bill that I worked on with my colleagues in the House, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. It was our keystone piece, work that I am proud of in the previous Parliament. This was all done on Zoom. Our government promised to put forward 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 would achieve the science-based goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

Bill C-12 is the fulfillment of our commitment to Canadians to put these legally binding processes in place.

I was encouraged to hear the recent Speech from the Throne on how our government would continue to take strong and bold climate action by focusing on innovation and good, green jobs. By working with like-minded countries, we will build a more resilient, sustainable and competitive economy. These commitments include investing in public transit and mandating the sale of zero-emission vehicles that will help us breathe cleaner air and increase the price on pollution, while putting more money back into Canadian pockets.

I will conclude my remarks by asking all members to support this motion of a hybrid Parliament. It is time for us to get to work. I am here to work and to do so in a way that is responsible and safe for all of us. This would allow all members to participate in the important debates in the House. Let us continue with a hybrid Parliament and do the job that Canadians elected us to do.

Government Business No. 9—Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-12 at report stage.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as members will see, my speech has a few things in common with the speech by my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

I believe the Greens, the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois all experienced the same frustration during the committee's study. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑12 anyway, despite its flaws, because we agree with the net-zero by 2050 target set out in the Paris Agreement.

I do want to point out, however, that the government chose to delay putting Bill C‑12 on the House's agenda for more than four months. It took pressure from environmental groups for the government to finally introduce it in the House.

It was introduced in November, and the Minister of the Environment announced the formation of his advisory body in December, before we had even discussed it in committee. In April, the Prime Minister declared his climate ambitions to President Biden, setting targets for a 40% to 45% reduction by 2030. It was not until mid-May that Bill C-12 was finally referred to the committee, with only a few weeks left in the parliamentary session. In our view, the government's calculation is clear: little time to hear witnesses, little time to read correspondence or the many briefs submitted to the committee and, lastly, a rushed and truncated clause-by-clause process whose outcome was, as some committee members put it, a foregone conclusion.

The government has run roughshod over important parts of the legislative process by imposing this agenda and the resulting delays. I am not alone in drawing these conclusions. Since urgent action is needed, we are now dealing with Government Business No. 9. The real emergency is the climate emergency. We were hopeful that the parties that had been clamouring for strong, robust climate legislation that provides transparency and accountability and is guided by science would deliver. I can say right now that the result has been disappointing.

For its part, the government, through the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, explicitly said that targets were going to be included in the bill. It did so twice: once in the House and once in committee. At the May 17 meeting, at 2:51 p.m., the minister confirmed the following to my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia: “Yes, the new target range of 40% to 45% that we have announced as a goal for 2030 will be a requirement of the act.”

The two ministers, namely the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of the Environment, lied: no numerical target ended up being included. We worked quickly, and we have had to pick up the pace because of the timeline I mentioned earlier. However, we did listen to what various experts had to say and heard their advice on what key elements were required to come up with an ambitious climate bill.

Even more importantly, given Canada's record on greenhouse gas emissions and its dismal past failures, it was important for us to establish a road map for a bill that would enable Canada to honour its international commitments under the Paris Agreement, or in other words, legislation that would provide Quebeckers and Canadians with a demonstrably viable path toward net-zero emissions, a green and fair transition and a future for our young people. That is what this is about. It is about the life we want for future generations in our communities.

We were given excellent advice, but the government, with the calculated and negotiated support of the NDP, failed to deliver the basics of what was required, despite the science and what it tells us, despite what we have been told over the years by experts from almost every sector of the economy, including those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency, despite the fact that time is of the essence and that we cannot take small steps when leaps and bounds are required, and despite the 33 robust amendments presented by the Bloc Québécois, which were all systematically rejected except for one.

I will not use my time to talk about everything that happened at committee because my colleague already covered that thoroughly, but I would like to talk about the other committee, the one the Minister of Environment and Climate Change created in December. Since December, the government has given that committee a hodgepodge of different names, as my colleagues will see.

The committee started out as an expert advisory panel, which was not bad. It was a good start, but then things went downhill. Next it was known as the independent advisory body, the departmental net-zero panel and the net-zero advisory panel. If my colleagues find that confusing, they are right.

Everything to do with the organization of what Bill C‑12 now calls the “net-zero advisory body” is crucial to Canada's ability to say it has a meaningful climate act, not just to the governing party's ability to call an election and say it has this great climate legislation and everyone should vote for that party.

The advisory body, its composition, its mandate, its responsibilities and powers, its operation and its resources are all elements that the Bloc Québécois tried to clarify with the sole aim of finding in this bill what it was supposed to promote: government transparency and accountability in dealing with the climate emergency. The things I just mentioned were largely left out of the original version of Bill C-12.

In its amended version the NDP simply added the word “independent” to the name of the body. However, getting independent advice and having an independent body are not at all the same thing. By refusing the amendments we proposed, the NDP's minor qualification is unfortunately merely cosmetic and has no real legal scope. The departmental expert who appeared at our meeting confirmed this unequivocally.

Climatologist Corinne Le Quéré appeared before the committee. She is the chair of France's High Council on Climate and a member of the Committee on Climate Change in the United Kingdom. She has participated in several studies conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, so she has extensive knowledge and expertise. She said, and I quote:

…the current design of the legislation makes the advisory group too close to the minister, and the independence isn't quite visible enough. It must be at arm's length. The distance isn't very visible.

Let us now talk about consultations. We want thorough consultations to take place with different sectors of the economy and with government actors, all with respect for Quebec, the provinces, indigenous peoples and civil society, it goes without saying. However, the consultations must be guided by the people who have the expertise and scientific knowledge on climate change, and not the opposite.

When I listen to science, I am not listening to a multitude of positions and propositions coming from all over the place, to interests that are sometimes reconcilable, sometimes divergent. People are best placed to draw up a plan for us when they are independent, either as individuals or as a body, when they consult others, accept positions and propositions and analyze them in light of the demands of the climate crisis and the solutions that scientific expertise has to offer.

I will mention an amendment that the NDP will try to get a lot of mileage out of, I am sure. It is the one that requires the minister's first plan to include an objective for 2026. My colleagues should make no mistake: The expert who was present at the study confirmed that an objective is not the same thing as a target. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley will tell us that his negotiated amendment is essentially a surrender. He said, and I quote:

There is other wording I would have preferred as well, but this exercise is about building enough agreement to get these changes through the committee, and that was the language that was agreed to that we feel will gain agreement from the majority of the committee members. I think the term “objective” is clear enough for most people to understand…That's certainly my understanding. My hope would be that the government would understand it similarly.

I wish him good luck with that, because hope is not a management tool for dealing with a climate crisis. I think it is good to remind our NDP colleagues of that fact.

The weekend after the first meetings for the clause-by-clause study of the bill, my office voice mail was bombarded by concerned citizens from places like Kingston, Victoria and Sudbury, who had watched the committee proceedings and wanted to express their severe disappointment as NDP supporters. Concerning the environmental file, two people went so far as to say that “the Bloc Québécois is the only real opposition left in Ottawa”. I am not making that up.

Will Canada impose an impossible task on future generations by making this accountability mere window dressing? The government must be accountable now, not in six months or a year.

The Bloc Québécois is a party with integrity that followed through on its convictions. We kept our word on the issue of climate accountability for the common good, for more transparency, for greater democracy, for more rigour and for more results.

We proposed a target of 37.5% below 1990 levels, the baseline year used by Quebec and the 27 EU countries. Canada decided to use 2005 as the baseline year, thus writing off 15 years of pollution.

We are facing a race that we cannot drop out of, but all we have is sneakers with no laces. I am worried about that. Everyone in Quebec and Canada should be worried, too. We were unable to see the process through to the end because of how the government, with the NDP as its ally, conducted this important debate.

We could wait until fall to put Bill C-12 to a vote. After all, the government waited six months to introduce it in the House and then refer it to committee. Instead of calling an election this summer, why not continue our work and wait until the fall to debate the bill and do an outstanding job of perfecting it? This will not happen, however, because the government would rather stand up in front of voters and show them how great it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments by the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, and I find his protestations somewhat disingenuous. I was at those committee meetings. I watched the member vote against the principle of climate accountability at second reading and then, at committee, vote against clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 6.1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. It is like the member is saying that he agrees we need to get across the river, but then he votes against wading, votes against swimming, votes against bridges and votes against watercraft.

Is the member in support of climate accountability, and will he be voting in support of Bill C-12?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I think it is important to say that the Liberals and the NDP rejected a lot of ideas. The Bloc Québécois, the Green Party and the Conservative Party proposed many improvements to Bill C‑12.

This bill was not perfect, no matter what the government believed. The opposition members from the Bloc, the Conservative Party and the Green Party are the ones who had a lot of positive ideas to protect the environment and to meaningfully address climate change.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. There seems to be a bit of a sense of electoral urgency in the air, so let me just say that I have always appreciated the honour to be their representative, and I will always keep fighting for their interests. I am thankful also to my family, who allow me to continue that work.

If we hearken back just to the Government Business No. 9 debate when it originally opened up, we had the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and me. I was interrupted part way through for the proceedings of this place. It happens all the time, so I do ask those watching at home to know I am continuing my speech. In essence, I was giving a litany of concerns raised by the committee process, which was hastened by the Liberals literally steamrolling through along with the NDP. It was a process whereby people who wrote in to the committee were not heard. There were no indigenous witnesses. In fact, even the Assembly of First Nations' brief, along with over 70 other briefs, was not translated and sent to the committee until after the period of amendment. This is something that has been raised by a number of people as being a concern, telling people they did not matter.

Returning back to my comments, I was speaking specifically about the need for different aspects to be included in the bill. I will just start where I left off.

What we wanted to do was to include in the assessment report a summary of the measures undertaken by the provincial governments to achieve the national emissions targets. Once again, that seems obvious. However, once again without any debate, the Liberals and the NDP rejected it. There were no reasons given. They just voted against it. Their changes would be to include only the key measures that the federal government was implementing together with the provinces. However, since the provinces will be doing many great things on their own, should there not at least be a record of them?

The Liberals truly believe that the provinces are subordinate to the federal government and that unless something is done by Ottawa, it is not important. That is not what we believe. A Conservative government would work with the provinces to reach our climate objectives. We believe that the provinces are partners, not punching bags.

There is another problem that I am hearing a lot about, and that is how the big push towards transportation electrification is affecting our electric grid.

Now, I support electric vehicles. Our party included an electric vehicle mandate in our “secure the environment” plan. We are not against electric vehicles, but Canadians are questioning whether the grid can handle this change. That is why we proposed that the assessment report in the bill include an assessment of the grid's ability to deal with increased demand.

We cannot move forward if we do not have the full picture. This was another reasonable proposal that was rejected by the Liberals and the NDP. We persevered nevertheless.

A lot of concern about the bill, including from me earlier on, has been about the formation of the advisory group. A significant number of briefs, witness testimony and amendments from other parties were about this very topic. We came up with what we believed was a reasonable approach: Instead of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change appointing all 15 members, he would simply appoint six. Then the Minister of Finance would appoint three, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry would appoint three and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations would appoint three.

This would allow a more whole-of-government approach and for different ministers to put forward the priorities from their ministries into the advisory body. Conservatives believed this was the best way to ensure a wide variety of voices, not a body that includes people devoted to destroying a way of life for many Canadians, yet, sadly, the Liberals and NDP rejected it. Why did I list all these changes and talk about why the Liberals and the NDP rejected them without even debating them? It is because I wanted to show how much of a farce this process was.

Everything I mentioned was thoughtful and reasonable. We did not come in with a “Liberals admit they are terrible and should resign” amendment designed to be defeated, no. We came in with good ideas that the Liberals and NDP refused to even debate or consider, all of this after the minister said he was willing to work with all parties. Yes, sure. It was not just the Conservatives affected by this bad-faith deal between the Liberals and the NDP. I have already mentioned how an identical Green Party amendment was defeated. By the end of the process, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands had started to withdraw her own amendments because it was clear the Liberal and NDP members were not even interested in listening.

The Bloc Québécois put forward many great amendments, not ones that Conservatives generally supported, but thoughtful and productive. The Liberals and the NDP opposed them all without debate, except for one at the very end and the NDP decided to support adding a five-year parliamentary review. No one could have watched that process in committee and not be sickened by what they saw. The Liberals and the NDP not only rejected any suggestion that was not their own, but a great deal of witness testimony to boot.

Indeed, the few amendments the Liberals proposed and supported did not do anything. Many were just spelling out that the minister must do things that the minister could already do. The biggest joke of them all was an amendment that the target of net zero by 2050 did not mean net zero could not be achieved earlier, which zero people thought was the case, yet before we were called just as bitter as the Liberals, we voted for a couple of government amendments we thought were good. We came in willing to work in good faith. Unfortunately, the government and the NDP did not.

What did the NDP get for seemingly selling out to the government and agreeing to be its coalition partner in all of this? It was not much, as it happens. Basically, every environmental witness and brief stated there needed to be a 2025 target in the bill, a milestone target. In fact New Democrats themselves said that over and over in debate on the bill, but did they get that by making a deal with the government? No. Instead, they got a 2026 interim objective, which is not actually a thing in the bill and only exists in the NDP amendments as a topic that must be reported on.

In the bill, targets have teeth. They must have plans and reports. The interim objective does nothing. That is what New Democrats got for their undying allegiance in this. They also say that they got the advisory group to be more independent. What that really means is they simply added the word “independent” to the name. Seriously, that is all they did, just added a word. The minister still appoints all of them and decides what they will do unilaterally, but the word is in the title, so it must be true. It would be funny seeing what little the NDP members gave up in exchange for their loyalty if it was not so sad.

I am sure the NDP member will rise after me and proclaim New Democrats made the bill better, that they got the Liberals to make these nothing changes and that means they are doing really good work. The reality is that the Liberal government pulled one over on the New Democrats, gave them almost nothing and got their dignity in return. They will have to answer to their friends in the environmental movement for this sellout. I expect some of those meetings will not be pleasant.

That is how we got to where we are. The Liberals and NDP rushed the process, refused to listen to witnesses or briefs, refused to debate anything and refused to consider any ideas not their own, and that is just disgraceful. While we, the Bloc and the Greens were trying to debate, trying to do the thing we have all been elected to do, the minister accused us of filibustering the bill.

There were over 150 amendments and they were moving through at less than 10 minutes each. We were not filibustering, we were asking questions and debating, the kind of thing one would expect to do at committee scrutiny. To the Liberals, I guess daring to ask questions is tantamount to heresy.

We saw what they did to Bill C-10, stopping debate and passing laws in secret. That is how they want this place to run: a rubber-stamp for their Liberal ideas. I reject that. My constituents sent me here to represent them and to try to make the country better, and yes, to debate.

Therefore, I did ask questions during debate, and it is not my fault the Liberals and NDP refused to. In the Liberal world, even asking questions is apparently now a filibuster, because how dare we question the member for Papineau, whose ideas are perfect as they are and should never be challenged no matter who someone is. Well, I will because that is what I was sent here to do. I will ask those questions.

Since I wrote my speech, we had a closure motion pass today. As I said, the process the government chose was to put forward a bill and let it drag along and drag along. I would have constituents ask about Bill C-12 and I would tell them the government just really has not decided to move it forward.

Suddenly Liberals get to the end of the session and they start remembering there is a bill they have to do. They rush it through committee, a process I have explained, as well as how difficult it was on the witnesses, and even for members. I am sure there are lots of things Liberals would have wanted to ask more questions on so they could do their job as backbenchers holding the government to account, but they could not. They agreed to a strategy and they stuck with the NDP faithfully.

Since then, this very night, the minister tried to say Liberals supported the Bloc Québécois in their parliamentary review. That was fundamentally out of synch with any sort of reality. It contradicts exactly the testimony we heard earlier. The closure motion did not just cut off debate for me but for all members, including those backbench Liberal MPs who maybe thought their constituents deserved to see their members of Parliament in action, asking questions, showing up to debate and putting forward their own ideas.

Let us be mindful, the House leader actually called the Conservatives out for filibustering a bill. We were asking questions, and he had the gall to say that we were holding things up. In fact, the Minister of the Environment a week ago Wednesday, wrote to different parties and asked us to finish the bill, which we were almost finished anyway.

We finished it Wednesday night, waited to see what happened Thursday and nothing. Eventually, our chair for the environment tabled it Friday and then Liberals said that they wanted to debate it as early as Monday, so we expected it. Then we found out that Government Business No. 9 suddenly springs out of nowhere. It sounded like they did not even want to debate Bill C-12, they just wanted to have something on the Order Paper, maybe because they knew it would not be ready in time.

What I am saying is the Liberals are in control of the agenda. One of the few things the government largely still has control of is the agenda on this place. Despite all their talk about us filibustering, they did not bring the bill forward. In fact, we did not even debate debating the bill, as in this motion, Government Business No. 9, until yesterday, a full week and a half after the bill was tabled.

I hope I have impressed upon members tonight that the government has slowly tabled a bill that many witnesses did not support, and then decided to let it languish on the Order Paper. When the Liberals finally realized they had to get the engines hopping, they jammed it through with only six hours of debate. Then they jammed it through again at committee. Now they are jamming it through today, so that even Liberal members do not get the ability to hold their own government to account, let alone all other members in this place.

I am deeply dissatisfied with the government. Canadians should see that the Liberals, by their own actions, have used a process whereby Canadians do not feel heard and their representatives do not feel needed. This is a minority Parliament. No political party was given an absolute majority in deciding the views of all Canadians.

This is where we are supposed to debate ideas and to force compromise. Instead, the Liberals and the NDP have linked up and said that they do not need to hear from anyone else. During a minority, that is a shame. Shame on the government House leader and the Minister of Environment for doing so.

On this side of the House, we will call out what we see. On this side of the House, we will fight for ideas that help our environment and help us meet our targets on climate change, not simply talk about them and talk a good game. After an election, a Conservative government will do what is right on the environment and do right by Canadians.

The House proceeded to consideration of the motion concerning the proceedings on Bill C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question, and I would appreciate a clear, concise answer from the minister.

If this motion is carried, and Bill C-12 eventually becomes law, who will ultimately be held accountable for Canada meeting its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets?

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

Madam Speaker, two years ago this House declared we were in a climate emergency and it took until November for the government to table this bill, which, when read, looked like no more than a public relations document pretending to be doing something. There is no accountability in this bill; it is hollow. I could not support it at second reading, because there is no principle behind it.

When it came to actually getting it into committee after a very short debate, most of the briefs arrived after the amendment period was over. It made a mockery of listening to concerned citizens. There was no youth or indigenous representation and no climate science testimony. Not a single indigenous witness was heard.

How often can the Liberals say they did not have time to consult indigenous people, while also saying that Bill C-12 respects UNDRIP?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I should say that we have included several elements of Bill C‑215 in Bill C‑12.

However, Bill C‑12 is much stronger than Bill C‑215, which was introduced in the House by the Bloc. Bill C‑215 aims for a target of 30% below 2005 levels. That is only a 30% reduction, whereas the targets in this bill are 40% to 45%, which is much stronger.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

When I think of my son and of Bill C‑12, I wonder: If one day he has the opportunity to sit in the House, will he be forced to participate in the same debates we are having today?

How does the minister, who I believe also has children, see the future of this debate if the fiscal anchors are not mandatory? Are we not letting this opportunity slip by? What concrete steps should we be taking for the sake of our children?

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

Madam Speaker, the minister said in the House at second reading of Bill C-12 that he was willing to work with all considerations from other parties. We asked for industry representation on the advisory board and he said he was open to that. Then he said that the Liberals were open to working with all parties regarding amendments. He also said that the Liberals supported a Bloc motion to have parliamentary review, which was not true. It was not something that happened. The Liberals voted against it. Today in the House, he said that there was an NDP milestone amendment, but the Green Party representative said this was not factual either.

Why are the minister and his party constantly in contradiction with the actual truth? Are we are having closure right now because they want to evade all accountability and pretend they are taking action on climate? Why does the minister always have to correct himself when he is found out?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois does not agree with the use of closure. This is nothing new.

The minister said earlier that the government had accepted amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois. Let me just set the record straight. We tabled only one of the 33 amendments, and the Liberals still found a way to vote against it.

The Bloc Québécois opposed the clause mentioning targets because it was outraged by the fact that the Minister of Canadian Heritage told the House and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change told the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development that they would include quantified targets in Bill C‑12, yet they did not keep their word.

The fact remains that Bill C‑12 was tabled in November and reached the committee in mid-May. If they thought it was urgent, why did the minister and his government not speed up the process? They had all of December, plus the period from February to May, to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, Greta Thunberg has said that net zero by 2050 is “surrender”, and without tough near-term targets, we are abandoning our children and grandchildren to an unlivable world. Bill C-12 still lacks a 2025 milestone, which was established in the COP decision document that Canada signed on to, and all experts agree that 2030 is too late.

The NDP and Liberal amendment for a 2026 interim greenhouse gas emissions goal is not a milestone year, but provides a window to review progress or the lack of progress. Why did the government reject the Green Party amendment that the plans and targets must be based on the best available science?

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

Madam Speaker, this bill is not the legislation we would have written. However, it is stronger than it was and we believe that it should be passed into law.

I believe I just heard the minister state that Bill C-12 is best in class when it comes to international climate accountability legislation. The message we heard very clearly from some of Canada's most prominent environmental organizations at committee was that the bill did not measure up to the best examples of climate accountability around the world.

I wonder if the minister could provide some rationale for his statement. What evidence does he base his “best in class” statement on?

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

Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed in how this government is governing. We were understanding during the pandemic, and the opposition parties worked with the government to implement exceptional measures.

However, it is not our fault if the government did a poor job of managing its parliamentary calendar and finds itself at the end of the session with dozens of bills to rush through. It is not giving us enough time to debate them, and that is just what is happening with Bill C‑12. We were hurried along in committee and did not get to improve it like we should have.

Why did the government not simply table it sooner?

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

Madam Speaker, I am terribly disappointed with the conduct of the government, and Canadians should be as well. The Liberals rushed their Bill C-12 through to committee. The committee decided that it did not want to hear from Canadians and ignored the majority of the briefs. The MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands, as well as members of the environment committee, were quite frankly ashamed to see Canadians ignored. Now, the government, because of its absolute mismanagement of the House calendar, is coming and invoking closure.

I cannot believe the New Democratic Party is going to be supporting this, but I wanted to ask how the government can justify using closure on a bill of this magnitude and denying the ability of parliamentarians on both sides of the House to hold the government to account.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[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, what a pleasure it is to address the House on such an important piece of legislation. To be very clear, in budget 2021 the government has outlined a plan to allow us to finish the fight against COVID-19, heal the wounds left by the COVID-19 recession as much as we can, and ultimately create more jobs and prosperity for Canadians in the days and decades to come.

This is critically important legislation, and we would encourage all members of all political stripes to support it. Within it is a continuation of the government's focus on the pandemic. In the last federal election, Canadians wanted Parliament to work well together. They wanted us to come together to do the things that were necessary to facilitate a more positive environment for all Canadians, and being thrown into a pandemic made the priority fighting COVID-19: the coronavirus.

From the very beginning, our Prime Minister and this government have made it very clear that fighting the pandemic was our number one priority. We put into place a team Canada approach and brought together all kinds of stakeholders including different levels of government, indigenous leaders, individuals, non-profit organizations and private companies. We brought them all in to hopefully minimize the negative impact of the coronavirus.

It is because of those consultations and working with Canadians that Canada is in an excellent position today to maximize a recovery. The statistics will clearly demonstrate that. We have a government that has worked day in and day out, seven days a week, and is led by a Prime Minister who is truly committed to making Canada a better community.

I have, over the last number of months, witnessed a great deal of frustration from the opposition, in particular the Conservative opposition. The Conservatives continuously attempt to frustrate the process on the floor of the House of Commons. There was a time when all parties inside the chamber worked together to pass necessary legislation, and worked together to come up with ideas and ways to modify things so we could better support individuals and businesses in Canada. However, that time has long passed. The degree to which we see political partisanship on the floor of the House of Commons today is really quite sad.

Yesterday was embarrassing. I know many, if not all, of my colleagues found it embarrassing and humiliating to see one of Canada's most noble civil servants at the bar on the floor of the House of Commons. The New Democrats and the Bloc joined with the Conservatives to humiliate a civil servant who should be applauded for his efforts over the last 12 months. He was publicly humiliated by being addressed in the manner he was, on the floor of the House of Commons, and it was distasteful. I say shame to the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives.

There were alternatives. If they did not want to take shots at the civil service, they could have dealt with it in other ways. For example, the Minister of Health provided the unredacted information to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which was made up of parliamentarians from all political parties. Instead of passing the motion they did, they could have passed a motion for that committee to table the documents they wanted from the civil service. After all, the civil service provided the unredacted copies to that committee, not to mention that documents that had been redacted for national interest and security reasons were sent to another standing committee.

The political partisanship we are seeing today is making the chamber, for all intents and purposes, dysfunctional. We have seen the official opposition, less than a week ago, come to the floor of the House of Commons and within an hour of debate attempt to shut down Parliament for the day. It actually moved a motion to adjourn the House. The opposition is oozing with hypocrisy. On the one hand, it criticizes the government for not allowing enough time for debate, and on the other hand it tries to shut down the chamber in order to prevent debate.

If we were to look up the definitions of the words “hypocrisy” and “irony” in Webster's, which I have not, I wonder if they would describe what we are seeing from the opposition party, which moves concurrence debate, not once or twice but on many occasions, so that the government is not able to move forward on legislation, including Bill C-30, which we are debating today. That legislation is there to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Members of the Liberal caucus have fought day in and day out to ensure those voices are heard, brought to Ottawa and ultimately formulating policy that will take Canada to the next level. However, we have an official opposition that I would suggest has gone too far with respect to its resistance and destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons.

I have stated before that I have been a parliamentarian for approximately 30 years, the vast majority of which were in opposition. I am very much aware of how important it is that we protect the interests of opposition members and their rights. I am very much aware of the tactics opposition parties will use, but at a time when Canadians need us to work together, we have an official opposition that is acting as an obstructive force. When we talk about how Bill C-30 will be there to support small businesses and put money in the pockets of Canadians so they have the disposable income necessary to pay the bills that are absolutely essential, the Conservative Party continues to play that destructive role. It continues to focus on character assassination and on ways to make something out of something that is often not real. The Conservatives are more concerned about political partisanship than getting down to work, which was clearly demonstrated last Thursday. They are more concerned about character assassination, as we saw the official opposition, with the unholy opposition alliance, take personal shots at a national hero, someone we all know as the Minister of National Defence. This is unacceptable behaviour we are witnessing.

We have critically important legislation before the House. We can think about the types of things Bill C-30 would do for Canadians. If we want to prevent bankruptcies from taking place, we need to support this legislation, as it supports small businesses through the extension of the wage subsidy program, a program that has helped millions of Canadians, supporting tens of thousands of businesses from coast to coast to coast.

This is the type of legislation that we are actually debating today. It is not the only progressive, good, solid legislation that we have brought forward. Yesterday, through a closure motion, we were able to push through Bill C-10. We can imagine that legislation not being updated for 30 years. It is a major overhaul. We can think about what the Internet looked like 30 years ago, compared to today.

The Liberal government understands, especially during this pandemic, and we see it in the budget, the importance of our arts community, whether it was with Bill C-10 yesterday, where the government had to push hard to get it through, or the budget implementation bill today, where we are again having to use time allocation. It is not because we want to, but because we have to.

If we do not take measures of this nature, the legislation would not pass. The opposition parties, combined, often demonstrate that if the government is not prepared to take the actions it is taking, we would not get legislation through this House. The opposition parties want to focus on electioneering. We have been very clear, as the Prime Minister has stated, that our priority is the pandemic and taking the actions necessary in order to serve Canadians on the issue. It is the opposition parties that continuously talk about elections.

In my many years as a parliamentarian, in the month of June we have often seen legislation passing. It happens. It is a part of governance. One would expect to see a higher sense of co-operation from opposition parties, in particular from the official opposition party, not the obstruction that members have witnessed, not the humiliation that we have seen on the floor of the House of Commons at times.

Liberal members of the House are prepared to continue to work toward serving Canadians by passing the legislation that is necessary before the summer break. We still have time to address other pieces of legislation. Minutes prior to going into this debate, I was on a conference call in regard to Bill C-19. Again, it is an important piece of legislation. I challenge my colleagues on the opposition benches to come forward and say that we should get that legislation passed so that it could go to the Senate.

I mentioned important progressive pieces of legislation, and the one that comes to my mind, first and foremost, is this legislation, Bill C-30. Next to that, we talk a lot about Bill C-6, on conversion therapy. We talk a lot about Bill C-10, dealing with the modernization of broadcasting and the Internet, and going after some of these large Internet companies.

We talk about Bill C-12 and net zero, about our environment. We can check with Canadians and see what they have to say about our environment and look at the actions taken by opposition parties in preventing the types of progressive legislation we are attempting to move forward with.

We understand that not all legislation is going to be passed. We are not saying the opposition has to pass everything. We realize that in a normal situation not all government legislation is going to pass in the time frame we have set forth, given the very nature of the pandemic, but it is not unrealistic for any government, minority or majority, to anticipate that there would be a higher sense of co-operation in dealing with the passing of specific pieces of legislation. Bill C-30 is definitely one of those pieces of legislation.

Unfortunately, some opposition members will have the tenacity to say they are being limited and are unable to speak to and address this particular important piece of legislation. Chances are we are going to hear them say that. To those members, I would suggest they look at the behaviour of the Conservative official opposition and remind them of the Conservative opposition's attempts to delay, whether it is through adjourning debates, calling for votes on those kinds of proceedings, concurrence motions or using questions of privilege and points of order as a way to filibuster, which all happen to be during government business.

Bill C-3 was a bill that initially came forward a number of years ago from Rona Ambrose, the then leader of the Conservative Party, about judges. We can look at the amount of debate that occurred on that piece of legislation. It is legislation that could have and should have passed the House with minimal debate. It was hours and hours, days, of debate. Even though the Conservatives supported the legislation, even back then they did not want to have the government passing legislation.

Their purpose is to frustrate the government, prevent the government from being able to pass legislation, and then criticize us for not being able to pass legislation. What hypocrisy this is. Sadly, over the last week or so, we have seen the other opposition parties buy into what the Conservative opposition is doing, which has made it even more difficult.

As much as the unholy alliance of opposition parties continues to do these things and frustrate the floor of the House, I can assure Canadians that, whether it is this Prime Minister or my fellow members of Parliament within the caucus, we will continue day in, day out to focus our attention on the pandemic and minimizing its negative impacts.

We are seeing results. Over 32 million vaccine doses have been administered to Canadians. We are number one in first doses in the world. We have close to 35 million doses already in Canada, and we will have 50 million before the end of the month. Canada is positioning itself well, even with the frustration coming from opposition parties. We will continue to remain focused on serving Canadians, and Bill C-30 is an excellent example of the way in which we are going to ensure that Canadians get out of this in a better position. We are building back better for all Canadians.

Motions in Amendment

[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, it is a shame that I only get 10 minutes to speak to this legislation, with all those amendments. I will try to be as concise as I can and provide some thoughts in regard to the last speech and, in particular, that last amazing question from the Conservative member.

It is important to recognize at the beginning that the very core of Bill C-10, from my perspective and I believer the way my caucus colleagues look at it, is to promote Canadian music, storytelling and creative works. The bill is about fairness and getting American web giants to pay their fair share and contribute to our cultural sector. That is absolutely necessary.

Before I expand on that, it is a bit much to hear the Conservatives refer the legislative agenda and say that it has been mismanaged. It is somewhat ridiculous that the Conservative members would even suggest such a thing when they are at the core of the problem. The Conservatives will say that they do not have enough time to debate and will ask why the government is bringing in different forms of time allocation, yet it is the Conservative Party that consistently wastes time on the floor of the House of Commons. Last Thursday, we were just getting under way and the Conservatives tried to adjourn debate for the day, they wanted to stop debate. They did not want to work anymore, and we were only on a Thursday morning.

What about the motions for concurrence the Conservative Party continuously raise? What about the raising of privileges and points of order as a mechanism to filibuster on the floor of the House of Commons? Government business, unlike Private Members' Business or opposition days, has a process that makes it very vulnerable to opposition parties. Whenever there are 12 or more members, it makes it very difficult for government to pass legislation if one of those opposition parties wants to make it difficult.

The Conservative Party of Canada members in the House of Commons have made it their mission to prevent the government from passing anything. We have seen that destructive force in the House of Commons. I do not think they have a case whatsoever to complain about debate times on pieces of legislation. We tried on numerous occasions to bring certain bills up or to extend hours to facilitate their needs, but the Conservatives have said that if they cannot get what they want, they will waste time. The government then has to bring in some form of closure or time allocation or nothing will ever get passed. We have seen that, and Bill C-10 is one example. They need to wake up.

The minister has done a fantastic job of bringing forward to the House legislation that would modernize an act that has not been modernized for three decades. Is it absolutely perfect? There was some need to make some modifications. Some of those modifications have, in fact, occurred. However, the spin that the Conservatives put on this is that it is terrible legislation that should never, ever see the light of day. We know the legislation would never be able to pass if it did not get the support from at least one opposition party.

It is not the Government of Canada ramming the legislation through. Often it feels as if it is the Government of Canada pleading and begging opposition to recognize the value and try to drum up support within the House. Fortunately, once again, at least one political party is prepared to see this legislation advance. I truly do appreciate it.

Bill C-10, as I said, is, at the core, promoting Canadian music, storytelling and creative work. The Conservatives argue against it, that somehow it limits freedom of speech, and they cite a number of examples. However, the Department of Justice has done an analysis of the legislation and has clearly indicated that it is consistent with the charter guarantee of freedom of speech, and that is coming from civil servants.

I wish the Conservatives would recognize that the bill would ensure that the act would not apply to users of social media services or to social media services themselves for content posted by their users. However, to listen to what the Conservatives are saying, one would not think that, because it does not fit their narrative.

The bill aims to update some critical elements of the broadcasting policy for Canada. For example, it would ensure that the creation of Canadian content is reflective of Canadian society and accessible to all Canadians. The bill would also amend the act to ensure that there is a greater account for things such as indigenous cultures and languages. It would also recognize that Canada's broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians, including racialized communities and our very diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socioeconomic status, abilities, disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions of age.

I can tell my Conservative friends, in particular, that things have changed since the act was really updated. The Internet was in its infancy. When I first got the chance to speak to the legislation, I made reference to the fact that when I was first elected 30-plus years ago as a Manitoba parliamentarian, the Internet was accessed by dialing up through the telephone, and I think it was on a 256-kilobytes Compaq computer. Actually, I started off with a small Apple computer that I put floppy disks into. Contrast that to what the Internet is today and how advanced technology continues to push us. We, at least on the government benches, recognize that this is change that needs to take place.

Unlike the Conservative Party, we recognize the true, intrinsic value of culture and heritage, and Canada's diversity continues to grow on a daily basis. We need to modernize the legislation. It is there for all Canadians, which is the reason this government is bringing forward this legislation, as well as other important legislation, whether it is Bill C-6 or Bill C-12.

This is solid, progressive legislation that is going to make a tangible difference, and this is why it is so sad at times when we see the unholy alliance of opposition parties trying to frustrate the government in getting through a legislative agenda that we can all be proud of before the summer break, which is something that is done all the time in June when government gives that final push before the summer break.

I would ask members to get behind this legislation and do what I and my Liberal caucus colleagues are doing: support it, and let us move on to more legislation.

Ethics

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, can my colleague tell me when the Conservatives will stop blocking the budget? Can he tell me when they will stop blocking Bill C‑10 so we can get the web giants to start contributing? When will they stop blocking Bill C‑12 so that we can continue working for the future of our children and grandchildren? When will they stop blocking Bill C‑6, on a process that harms our youth and the LGBTQ+ community?

When will they stop blocking these progressive bills, and when will the Bloc Québécois and the NDP stop supporting the Conservatives' antics and start helping us and all Canadians?

Bill C‑12—Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, is this not a strange set of circumstances? When the government House leader said that we would be debating Bill C-12 last week, I foolishly assumed he meant the actual bill. Multiple times last week it looked like maybe Bill C-12 would be debated, but no. The Liberals say that we Conservatives are delaying. Unfortunately, instead of debating the bill today, we are debating a motion to shut down debate on the bill because the government cannot seem to manage the House agenda at all. To say this bill is urgent after not calling it for months, and indeed after proroguing the House and delaying everything, is the height of hypocrisy. Therefore, here we are.

This is not the first disaster of management on this legislation by the current government. Indeed, it is just the most recent in a long list of failures relating to the bill. I would like to go through some of those here.

When the bill was first introduced, I stood in the House and said I would support the bill. That is true and on the record. However, at that time, I made the mistake of taking the minister at his word: that he was willing to work in good faith with opposition parties. Very quickly I was disabused of this notion.

The first domino was when the government pre-empted the bill entirely. It ignored its own promises and appointed the advisory body. The minister had committed to working with us and with the oil and gas industry to develop the advisory group. In fact, the Minister of Natural Resources said, “We're not reaching net-zero without our oil and gas sector in this country. We're not reaching it.” I agree with this minister and expected direct representation from this critical industry on the group advising government. Unfortunately, instead, the minister appointed a body with no direct oil and gas representation. It was full of people devoted to the death of that industry and the jobs and prosperity it brings.

There were some choice quotes and statements from various members of the advisory committee. One tweet thanked Greta Thunberg for calling on the Prime Minister to stop all oil and gas projects. Another rejected that fossil fuels could co-exist with climate action, rejecting the industry and its workers entirely. Another advocated for stopping all fossil fuel exports and another said, “Tomorrow, I'll join thousands gathering around Canada to call on premiers to act on climate and reject pipelines.”

Members may think that I am done, but I am just getting started because all those were from one person: Catherine Abreu of the Climate Action Network.

Another board member, Kluane Adamek, again quoted Greta, advocating abandoning the fossil fuel economy. Simon Donner from UBC, another board member, called to halt all new oil sands projects and asked if we should cap production entirely.

To be clear, I am not saying that these people are not entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. We are a free country with free speech, until Bill C-10 passes I guess. However, the minister chose these people who are actively anti-oil and gas and put them on this group to tell him what to do in regard to policies relating to oil and gas.

We wanted to work with him on this advisory group and felt it could represent expertise in which Canadian industry excels. Instead, the minister would much rather reject industry entirely, so I for one have no interest in supporting his crusade or his legislation. It has become clear that the minister is completely focused on destroying Canada's oil and gas sector and all the people it employs.

Even knowing all that, we went into the committee process in good faith. I met with many groups from across the ideological spectrum, did a lot of research and worked to create productive and relevant amendments that would improve the bill. What did we find at committee? As many more people watch the House and committees, despite being wonderful entertainment, I will let those at home know what exactly occurred.

Initially, when the bill came to us at committee, all parties worked together to create a timeline for consideration that would have allowed enough time to hear witnesses, receive briefs and review the bill. However, when the committee next met, the Liberal members dropped a surprise motion to reverse all that had been agreed to in order to fast-track the bill and get it through as fast as possible. At the time, Conservatives warned that this schedule would make it difficult to properly conduct our important work, and how right we were.

The Liberals, with their NDP allies, were able to speed things up, so we started the study immediately. Witnesses were due the next day, so everyone had to scramble to do their best. Witness testimony was essentially limited to two days. We did hear some particularly good testimony from a variety of witnesses, yet on something clearly this important to the Liberals, why would they not want more evidence? It would become clear soon enough.

Many people do not know that when committees study a bill, there is a deadline to submit witnesses and amendments. As well, drafting amendments takes a couple of days. The incredibly hard-working staff, who assist in drafting these, are amazing to work with, but writing law takes time. The deadline for amendments in this sped-up Liberal-designed process was immediately after we heard the last witness testimony, so there was not much time to formulate ideas and get them ready. Even worse was how it affected the written submissions. This is what really gets me.

As soon as the bill got to committee, we put out a call for written briefs. These are quite common: Generally experts or interested Canadians send in their opinions on a piece of legislation. They are an essential aspect in ensuring that Canadians can feel included in the process and feel heard. I spoke to witnesses who, when invited to the committee, were told the deadline for submitting a brief was the day they were invited. These briefs are often technical and professionally researched articles. How is an expert supposed to write a submission with literally zero days' notice? The answer is they cannot.

Additionally, as we are a bilingual nation, all of the submissions had to be collected and translated before being sent to members of the public. All of this led to the farce that we saw at the environment committee on the study of Bill C-12. When amendments were due on a Friday before we started clause-by-clause review, only a small number of briefs were available to members. The next week, there were dozens of briefs. Over 70 were posted and then made available. That means that due to the Liberals' single-minded focus on passing the bill as fast as they could and limiting the witness testimony as much as they could, the vast majority of public opinion on the bill was not available until after amendments were due. This is a completely disrespectful act conducted by the Liberals and their allies in the NDP to ignore public opinion.

Ontario Power Generation, Fertilizer Canada, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the Canadian Nuclear Association and the Canadian Electricity Association all sent briefs after amendments were due. Even environmental groups were hurt by this. The briefs from Ecojustice, Citizens' Climate Lobby, Leadnow, the David Suzuki Foundation and the previously mentioned Climate Action Network all were not available until after amendments were due.

Perhaps the most egregious impact of the Liberals' behaviour on this bill is that no indigenous witnesses were heard from during the study. As par for the course, the brief from the Assembly of First Nations, as I am sure everyone has guessed, was available only after amendments were due.

Additionally, there were a great many briefs from individual Canadians who worked hard to have their voices heard. Thanks to the Liberals, they feel ignored. I heard from one Canadian who said she worked hard on her brief and was excited to have her voice heard, yet when she learned that amendments were due before her brief could even be read, she was totally disenchanted with the process. Our responsibility as elected officials is to ensure that Canadians feel heard, feel included and feel a part of something. What the Liberals and their NDP allies did during this process is disgraceful, and it is a terrible mark on the history of this place.

Now I will get to the clause-by-clause study itself. Despite all I said, we still went in with productive amendments and hoped for the best. Indeed, the minister said he was willing to work with all parties to make the bill better. Again, that turned out not to be true. It became clear very quickly that, instead of there being a willingness to debate or even engage on good ideas, the fix was in. The Liberals and the NDP made a deal to approve their own amendments and reject everyone else's, no matter how reasoned or reasonable.

Before I get to our proposed amendments, I just want to share an example that shows how ridiculous the whole process was. At one point during the study, the Green Party proposed an amendment that was identical to a government amendment. The Green Party's amendment came up first, and the Liberal and NDP members opposed it even though it was exactly the same as their own amendment.

It is clear that their strategy was to reject literally every other suggestion, regardless of what it was. For context, the amendment in question would have required emissions targets to be set 10 years in advance.

People who are familiar with the workings of Parliament and committees can probably guess what happened next. If an amendment is rejected, any subsequent amendment that says the same thing is automatically removed from the list because the committee has already expressed its will on the matter. The Liberals and New Democrats are so staunchly opposed to any amendment other than their own that they ended up killing one of their own amendments.

What followed was an absurd exchange during which the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley proposed a new amendment that would require targets to be set 9 years and 366 days beforehand, instead of 10 years. I am not giving this example to poke fun at the Liberals and the New Democrats, even if it was funny, but because it shows to what extent they were reluctant to consider changes that were not theirs.

What were some of the reasonable changes we proposed? I think Canadians would like to know.

First, we think that solving the very real problem of climate change must be done through a whole-of-government approach. The federal government is famous for operating in silos. One group or department that is responsible for a problem or a particular issue does not usually work with others, or does not coordinate with them. I am sure anyone who has worked in Ottawa or for the federal government has many stories about this. That cannot happen when it comes to tackling climate change. Everyone must work together.

Of course, Environment and Climate Change Canada is the key department, but it also needs to coordinate with the departments of industry, finance, natural resources, employment, crown-indigenous relations and many others. We therefore proposed a series of straightforward amendments to remove the powers to set targets, create plans and approve reports from the Minister of Environment alone and include the entire cabinet. The Minister of Environment would recommend policy to cabinet, but cabinet would ultimately decide how to move forward. This is not exactly reinventing the wheel.

That is generally how policy is made in government: Silos are broken down as much as possible and other departments are included.

Perhaps the Minister of Environment did not consider the impact on industry, jobs and indigenous peoples. Bringing together cabinet to make decisions about these objectives and plans is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the NDP even refused to debate, and they rejected every amendment we proposed for that purpose.

In their dream world, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change is an omnipotent figure who dictates every policy by decree. That is not how the Conservatives want to manage things. We believe in collaboration and the importance of working together, especially on the issue of climate change.

Another set of amendments that we proposed would have added that, when objectives were set or plans formulated, the minister would be required to balance social and economic factors, including the impact on employment and national unity. Climate change is real, and we absolutely need everyone to work hard to address it.

We cannot accomplish this by blowing the top off Canadian industry and the well-paying jobs that support Canadian families. We need to look at the big picture and make decisions that will improve the lives of all Canadians. That includes Canadians in the regions that will be most affected by these policies. Our country is stronger together, and we must do all we can to keep it that way. A government that is bent on destroying a region's main industry is not a government that knows how to build a nation. Therefore, it seems to me that examining how these policies will impact these factors would be a good idea.

However, the Liberals and the New Democrats refused to so much as debate the subject and rejected all the amendments, which, frankly, surprised me. The government loves to talk about how the green economy will create so many jobs. If that were true, our amendment would allow the government to brag about it, would it not? Instead, they rejected it. Why? Because it came from the Conservatives.

We then suggested that the progress report include the greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration from non-anthropogenic or non-human factors. This would include the amounts sequestered by our vast unmanaged forests and prairies and emissions from such things as forest fires and methane releases from melting permafrost. I personally feel that we cannot make a plan unless we have the full picture. Canadians often ask me what impact our forests have on emissions. Although this information is available in some places, it would be much easier for Canadians to have access to it in the main reports. Again, this seems like an obvious thing to include, but the Liberals and the NDP voted against it without debate.

After that, we proposed another great addition. As people know, Canada is a federation, and the provincial governments control many of the policy levers that are needed to achieve our climate goals. They manage the resource sector, the electrical grid and the building code.

We wanted the assessment reports to include a summary of the measures taken by the provincial governments to achieve the national greenhouse gas emissions targets.

Again—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear from members of the Green Party, who voted against the bill at second reading, who voted against it in principle and now cry foul that we should take their amendments at face value and wanting to be part of this process. It is clear they are not. It is disappointing to see their leader, instead of focusing on important environmental issues, attack the Minister of Finance for no apparent reason.

Perhaps the hon. member wants to look to his own caucus to see where the hon. member for Fredericton sits now and which party she thinks has a credible plan for the environment, and that includes Bill C-12.

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

Madam Speaker, I share the parliamentary secretary's view that we need to move expeditiously to get this bill into law, given the severity of the climate crisis.

One of the key differences between Bill C-12 and the gold standard legislation out of the U.K. is that the latter uses a carbon budget framework, and it has been proven, through its example, to work magnificently. However, the Canadian government chose a different approach in this legislation. The minister came to committee and tried to explain to us why that was, and frankly his explanation did not make very much sense.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could take a stab at sharing the rationale for not using the proven approach, which is the use of carbon budgets as in the U.K.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her climate advocacy, but Bill C-12 would achieve measures similar to the Bloc's objectives in Bill C-215, and the amendments that were adopted by the committee confirm that. I know there was a concern from the Bloc about incorporating targets into law. I would remind my colleague that the government proposed an amendment to the committee to incorporate Canada's target within the legal text of the bill and the Bloc voted against it; it tried to defeat the amendment.

Again, there was an honest attempt to work collaboratively, and I hope we have the Bloc's support. In hearing from environmental groups—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion, but I would like to focus my remarks on Bill C-12 itself and the importance of passing this legislation.

As I hope all members in this House know, climate change is a global threat and Canadians rightly expect us to take action to counter the climate crisis. The net-zero emissions accountability act is a fundamental part of this plan. If we do not reduce emissions rapidly and consistently down to net-zero by 2050 at the latest, we will not achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. This is an existential threat to the planet on which there is global consensus.

At the Leaders Summit on Climate convened by President Biden in April, the Prime Minister joined 39 other world leaders of nations that account for more than half of the world's economy as they committed to set emissions reductions, the pace required globally, to limit warming to 1.5°C. We have a responsibility to all Canadians and future generations to act now.

In November 2020, our government tabled Bill C-12, an act that would enshrine in legislation Canada's commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and provide a framework of accountability and transparency to ensure governments undertake the planning, take the actions and conduct the monitoring needed to achieve that goal.

In May 2021, Bill C-12 was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for consideration and clause-by-clause. During this study, our government listened to the broad range of feedback and worked collaboratively with members of the House of Commons in order to further strengthen and improve the bill. Several amendments spanning virtually all areas of the bill were adopted by the environment committee to reinforce Bill C-12.

This is the version now before the House of Commons, and I will summarize the amendments that were adopted. First, new language has been added to the preamble to state clearly that climate change is a global problem requiring immediate and ambitious action by all governments in Canada. In addition, the preamble lists Canada's international and domestic greenhouse gas emissions reporting obligations as such under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

As we know, the objective of Bill C-12 is for Canada to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The new version of Bill C-12 clarifies that nothing in the act would preclude Canada from attaining net-zero emissions before 2050. In other words, net-zero by 2050 is the minimum goal. If we can reach the goal earlier it would be even better, and nothing in this law would prevent that kind of ambition.

The committee also worked on improving the act's provisions in relation to targets. First, the committee voted in favour of codifying the 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target as Canada's nationally determined contribution for that year under the Paris Agreement, which the Prime Minister announced at the recent Leaders Summit on Climate as 40% to 45% below our 2005 levels. In addition, each greenhouse gas emission target set under the act must be a progression from the previous one. This amendment would prevent backsliding on Canada's greenhouse gas emissions targets. Lastly, each target must be as ambitious as Canada's most recent nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement.

Under this new version of the act, all targets after 2030 would be set at least 10 years before the beginning of its corresponding milestone year instead of the five years in advance provided by the original version of the bill. This new provision would ensure the government starts planning for future targets earlier and would align with Canada's current practice under the UNFCCC.

Going a step further, the committee adopted a complementary amendment that would strengthen the act by requiring the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to publish within a year of setting the targets for 2035, 2040 and 2045 a high-level description of key emissions reductions measures to achieve that target, as well as the latest projection of greenhouse gas emissions.

This provision would, for example, ensure the targets set for 2035 in 2025 are accompanied by a high-level description of those measures that will be undertaken to reach the target, as well as the most current emissions projections. The detailed plan to achieve the 2035 target would be due no later than December 2029.

With respect to the criteria for setting the targets, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change must now consider submissions and advice provided by the advisory body in addition to the best scientific information available and Canada's international commitments with respect to climate change.

Another set of amendments enshrines the role of indigenous knowledge. The preamble now states the Government of Canada's commitment to taking indigenous knowledge into account when carrying out the purposes of this act, and a related amendment would require the minister to consider indigenous knowledge when setting greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

Year 2030 is not that far away, and Bill C-12 needs to provide accountability for taking action prior to 2030 as well as after that. To address this, the committee adopted a new provision that would require the inclusion of an interim greenhouse gas emissions objective for 2026 in the emissions reduction plan for 2030.

Further amendments would require additional progress reports in 2023, 2025 and 2027. These reports must now contain an update on the progress made towards achieving the 2026 interim objective. Moreover, the bill would now require that the first report to the Commissioner of the Environment and the Office of the Auditor General to be submitted by the end of 2024. Taken together, these changes would provide a midpoint check-in between now and 2030, and ensure meaningful accountability checkpoints over the next decade.

The committee also strengthened the planning requirements in the bill. The amended bill would now require the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to take into account the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the submissions provided by the advisory body, and any other relevant consideration when establishing the plan.

It also prescribes some of the items that must be included in each plan, such as the description of how Canada's international commitments with respect to climate change are taken into account, projections of the annual greenhouse gas emission reductions resulting from the plan's combined measures and strategies, and a summary of the co-operative measures or agreements with the provinces and other governments in Canada.

Consultation is an important element of Bill C-12. Canadians, indigenous peoples of Canada, environmental and non-government organizations, and other interested parties would be able to provide opportunities and make submissions at various stages of the act's implementation, such as when the minister has to set a target or plan.

To strengthen the commitment to transparency, Bill C-12 now includes a provision that would require the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to publish a report on the results of the consultations carried out in relation to targets and plans.

The committee also approved the progress report requirements. As I previously noted, the 2023, 2025 and 2027 progress reports on the 2030 target must also include an update on the progress made to achieving the 2026 interim objective. In addition, the 2023 report, as the midpoint between now and 2025, would be required to contain an assessment of the 2030 target and include changes being made to correct the course, if needed, to achieve the target.

Other amendments would also require more content to be included in the progress report, such as Canada's most recent published greenhouse gas emissions projection for the next milestone, and details on any additional measures that could be taken to increase the probability of achieving the target if projections indicate that a target will not be met.

Similar amendments were also adopted with respect to assessment reports with a view of ensuring they also contain a summary of Canada's most recent official greenhouse gas emissions, inventory and information submitted by Canada under its international commitments on climate change, as well as an assessment of how key co-operative measures or agreements with provinces or other governments in Canada described in the plan contribute to Canada's efforts to achieve the target.

The committee also adopted a number of changes with respect to the advisory body. The act now formally establishes the net-zero advisory body. It specifies that the net-zero advisory body would provide independent, forward-looking advice on achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, which also includes providing advice on targets and plans. These amendments within the act align with the current net-zero advisory body's terms of reference, which were published by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in February 2021. Further, the act would now require the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to publish the advisory body's terms of reference and amendments made to them.

This strengthens the act by increasing the transparency of the process. With respect to the membership of the net-zero advisory body, the amended bill contains new provisions that would require the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to consider the need for the net-zero advisory body, as a whole, to have expertise in or knowledge of, among other things, climate change science, indigenous knowledge, physical or social sciences, climate change policy at the national, subnational and international levels, energy supply and demand, and relevant technologies.

With regard to the annual report of the net-zero advisory body, the committee adopted a new provision requiring the net-zero advisory body to take into account a range of factors when preparing the report, including environmental, economic, social, technological and the best scientific information and knowledge, including indigenous knowledge, with respect to climate change.

This provision recognizes that multiple factors must be taken into account in developing a plan that meets the science-based objectives of the net-zero emissions by 2050 in a way that works best for Canada.

Moreover, in line with the objective of keeping the government accountable and transparent toward Canadians, the act now clarifies that the net-zero advisory body's annual report must set out results of its engagement activities. It also requires the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to publish the report 30 days after receiving it and to respond publicly within 120 days. The minister's response must also address any target recommendations by the net-zero advisory body that differs from the one the minister has set.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development plays an important role in the accountability regime established by the bill. Unlike the net-zero advisory body's report, which will provide forward-looking advice, the CESD will assess past performance of the government on its path to achieve net zero by 2050. Its first report is now to be submitted no later than 2024.

Finally, with respect to regulations made by the Governor in Council, the act has been modified to clarify that any regulation made by the Governor in Council under the act must align with the international standards to which Canada adheres.

Canadians are counting on us. They want assurance of Canada's sustained commitment to achieve net zero by 2050 and they want ongoing input into the consideration of the pathways to get there. By putting climate obligations into law, the net-zero emissions accountability act would ensure that governments are accountable for and transparent about their actions to combat climate change. Putting Bill C-12 into law as soon as possible is critical to this effort.

I am very proud of the collaborative work that took place during the committee study. Those efforts have resulted in a strengthened and improved version of the act, one that provides greater predictability, transparency and accountability. This collaborative work will continue and is crucial to successfully fight the climate crisis and transition toward a resilient and strong low-carbon future. Our government is committed to doing just that.

It is therefore my hope we can advance the bill and this motion to a final vote on this revised and improved version of Bill C-12, and allow it to be considered by the Senate as expeditiously as possible.

Criminal Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, shame on the member for the interruption.

I have debated this issue. I have supported this issue's advancement, and I suspect that it will get through second reading at some point, as other private members' bills will. If there is keen interest such as I have heard today on the floor of the House from all members, I would suggest that they raise the issue with their respective House leadership teams. Maybe there is a way in which it can be accommodated.

Is this select group now going to prioritize all the other areas and bills that are before us and say these ones too should be rushed through the House of Commons without debate, let alone some debate? I could list Bill C-6 on conversion therapy. I could talk about Bill C-30, which is going to help millions of Canadians, many of whom are in desperate situations. Then there is Bill C-12, on net zero and the environment, and Bill C-10. That does not even go into the many private members' bills from many of our colleagues who are very interested in advancing their ideas, resolutions and bills.

That does not take away from the importance of the debate on this bill. I suspect that when it comes to a vote, every member will likely vote for it as they did previously. The ones who are trying to score political cheap shots today are the opposition parties. In the days going into summer, this is brought to the table. If the people who are pushing for this legislation really wanted to do a service for the audience, there is a better way of doing it. I suspect some of them know that, but they have chosen to do this in their partisanship, while saying the Liberal government is preventing it.

Out of respect for some of the individuals I have referenced, I will work within my caucus, as I know my colleague from Toronto who spoke prior to me will. We understand what the bill and the legislation will do, but we also understand that after today there are three days left of this session before we break for the summer. There are still opportunities to try to shame one political entity into unanimous consent for personal or political views, or to try to make others look bad. I believe that the manner in which this issue is being dealt with today is just wrong.

I have been on House leadership teams for 30 years. It would be nice to see this bill passed at all stages. If that is possible, then I would really recommend that members watching or participating use that same passion in talking to their House leaderships. There might even be some other members who have other ideas for legislation that may be important to them and to Canadians, and that could allow us to set a good example around the world.

Canada taking action can have a positive outcome for other nations. I recognize that, but I also recognize that at the end of the day, in order for us to succeed we have to have a process. If we are respectful of the process and work in collaboration as parties, we could probably achieve a lot more, as we did for the private member's bill the first and second go-round.

I would invite members who are following the debate to participate in a discussion afterwards with regard to how I feel, using my expertise, about what could be done with regard to this legislation.

I suggest this as an open gesture of goodwill, because I, like the former Liberal speaker, support the legislation.

[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 to the member is related to the request he has asked of the House. Would he agree that what he was attempting to do is best done through House leadership teams, where they can try to see if it is possible to do what he has requested?

For example, would the member support the quick passage of Bill C-30, which is the budget bill, given the implications for the pandemic and supports for Canadians? Would he support such a measure for Bill C-30, Bill C-6, Bill C-10 and Bill C-12?

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is important legislation, as is Bill C-12, Bill C-10 and Bill C-6. They contain important value-based measures for Canadians that we need to pass before we rise for the summer.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which he ended with a few words on the environment. I would like him to say more about that, because I was so disappointed by the NDP's behaviour at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development during the study of Bill C‑12.

We already knew that the Liberals were talking out of both sides of their mouths on the fight against climate change, but I was certain that the NDP and the Bloc held the same beliefs. However, the NDP gave the Liberals a free pass, which means that the climate law will be weak and toothless.

In the budget, the Liberals earmarked $17.6 billion for what they have the nerve to call a green recovery when, from the start of the pandemic, they have given $18 billion to oil companies. Scientists are saying that if we continue to subsidize oil companies and invest in oil, we will never reach our targets or achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Does my colleague agree with me that we must stop giving oil companies government subsidies?

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and also thank and congratulate André Gagnon for his invaluable help and his kindness. I wish him a happy retirement.

To answer my esteemed colleague's question, this afternoon we will finish the debate on the opposition motion. This evening we will debate and vote on the estimates.

Tomorrow we will resume debate at report stage of the same bill, Bill C‑30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1.

Next week, priority will be given once again to Bill C‑30 at third reading stage because it is absolutely essential. We want to send this bill to the Senate as soon as possible of course.

Our other priorities will be Bill C‑12 on net-zero emissions, Bill C‑10 on broadcasting and Bill C‑6 on conversion therapy.

In closing, since this is my last Thursday statement before the House rises for the summer, I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the incredible and at times difficult work that you did all year to guide us in these hybrid sittings of the House, which added an extra challenge. I also want to thank the clerks, the interpreters, the support staff, the pages and all the parliamentary staff without whom we would absolutely not be able to do our job every day.

Many thanks to all.

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, there is clearly a pattern that has emerged over the last number of months. At the same time that the Liberals are complaining that business is being held up, they have been holding up the business of committees by filibustering one after another, sometimes for days at a time, making it difficult for the committees to do their work.

Yes, this is a pattern. It is a pattern of the Liberals saying one thing and doing another. Essentially they are saying that they want to move business through the House; we want to move business through the House too. There are lots of bills that are important to be passed. We want to see Bill C-12 pass. We want to see Bill C-6 pass. We want to see Bill C-10 pass. There is legislation that needs to be passed because there is an urgent need for it. However, instead of doing that, the Liberals are prolonging this debate, and in committees they are filibustering in unnecessary ways when there is business to be done.

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

Madam Speaker, I can understand why the Conservatives do not want to hear this. I am telling members why it is that they are choosing this path right now, why they do not want to talk about these things and why the member for Carleton stood up here for 45 minutes on a question of privilege that had nothing to do with privilege. It is because they do not want to debate and discuss these meaningful implementations for Canadians.

This is despite the fact that members of Parliament from all parties in this House have debated this legislation for a combined 22 hours, hearing from more than 160 speakers. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance has studied the bill exhaustively for more than 40 hours, hearing from 132 witnesses, and the minister appeared before the committee to address the members' questions.

The Conservatives are also obstructing because they do not want Bill C-12, the net-zero legislation, to pass. Why do they not want this to pass? It should not be a surprise to anybody that they do not even believe in climate change. Do not take my word for it, Madam Speaker. The member—

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[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, it is a pleasure to address this issue this afternoon. There are a couple of aspects that I would like to provide some comment on, but first and foremost is the idea of Bill C-30, now at report stage, and how important passing it is to all Canadians.

The other day, I talked about a progressive agenda. The Government of Canada has put forward a very strong, healthy, progressive agenda that includes today's bill, Bill C-12, Bill C-6, Bill C-10, Bill C-22 and Bill C-21. Of course, I often make reference to Bill C-19 as well. All of these pieces of legislation are important to the government, but I would argue that the most important one is the bill we are debating today, Bill C-30.

The budget is of critical importance for a wide variety of reasons. I can talk about the benefits that seniors would be receiving as a direct result of this budget bill, in particular those who are 75 and over, with the significant fulfillment of our campaign promise of a 10% increase to OAS for seniors aged 75 and above, and a one-time payment coming up in the month of August for that group. During the pandemic, we have been there for seniors, in particular those 65 and over, with one-time payments closer to the beginning of the pandemic, and even an extra amount for those who were on the guaranteed income supplement. That is not to mention the many different organizations that the government supported, whether directly or indirectly, to support our seniors, in particular non-profit organizations.

We have done a multitude of things, many of which are very tangible. The Minister of Finance made reference to the extension of some of the programs, for example, which we brought in so we could continue to be there for businesses and real people. This was so important. At the beginning of the process, the Prime Minister made it very clear that this government, the Liberal Party and the Liberal members of the House of Commons were 100% committed to working seven days a week, 24 hours a day to ensure that the interests of Canadians in combatting and fighting the pandemic were going to be priority number one.

As to that priority, we saw the establishment of a large number of new programs that ensured money was being put directly into the pockets of Canadians. One was the CERB, which benefited somewhere around nine million Canadians. Virtually out of nowhere this program came into being, in good part thanks to our civil servants, who have done a tremendous job in putting in place and administering the many different programs.

We have seen programs to support our businesses in particular, whether it is the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, the emergency rent subsidy program, the emergency business account or the regional relief and recovery fund. We recognized what Canada needed. The Government of Canada worked with Canadians and with, in particular, provinces, non-profits, territories, indigenous leaders and many others in order to make sure that Canadians were going to be protected as much as possible. All of this was done with the goal of being able to get us, as a nation, out of the situation we are currently in.

We have put ourselves in a position where Canada will be able to recover, and recover well. It is interesting to hear the Conservative Party asking about the debt. Many of the things I just finished talking about are the reasons why we have the debt. The Conservatives in many ways are saying we should be spending more money, while the Conservative right is saying we have spent too much money or is asking about the debt. Some Conservatives are talking about the creation of jobs. The most recent Conservative commitment was that they would create one million jobs.

Between 2015, when the Liberals were first elected, and the election of 2019, we created over a million jobs. We understand how important jobs are. Jobs are one of the reasons it was important for us to commit to businesses of all sizes, and small businesses in particular, to get through this difficult time. We knew that by saving companies from going bankrupt and by keeping Canadians employed we would be in a much better position once we got ahead of the pandemic.

I am actually quite pleased today. I started off by looking at the national news. A CBC story said that when it comes to first doses Canada is now ahead of Israel, according to a graph that was posted. When we think of populations of a million or more, Canada is doing exceptionally well. We are ahead of all other nations in dealing with the first dose.

I am now qualified to get my second dose. Earlier today I had the opportunity to book an appointment for a second dose on July 7. Canadians are responding so well to the need for vaccination. We understand why it is so important that we all get vaccinated. We need to continue to encourage people to get those shots.

It goes without saying that we need to recognize many very special people who have been there for Canadians. The ones who come to mind immediately are the health care workers here in the province of Manitoba. They are a special group of people that not long ago, in a virtual meeting, the Prime Minister expressed gratitude for in a very strong and significant way.

Our health care workers, whether the nurses, doctors or lab technicians, and people in all areas of health care, including those providing and sanitizing facilities as well as a whole litany of people, have ensured that we have been there from a health perspective.

We can look at workers involved with essential items such as groceries. Whether it was long haul truck drivers, people stacking groceries or collecting money for groceries, or taxi drivers who took people where they needed to go, whether to the hospital or the grocery store, they were there. Public institutions were there. I think of Winnipeg Transit bus drivers who opened their doors not knowing who was walking onto their buses. They were all there.

This legislation we are debating today is a continuation of getting Canada in a better, healthier position to deal with the coronavirus. We needed to bring in time allocation because of the destructive behaviour of the official opposition. We wanted to work and the Conservatives wanted to take time off. There was an excellent indication of that last Thursday, which was the biggest day in terms of debate for government. The Conservatives attempted to end the session only moments after the day got under way. It is not right that the Conservatives are playing games. We need to pass this legislation. I would ask all members to vote for it.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development 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. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Motions in Amendment

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, this is very important. The hon. member has drawn attention to the fact that certain speakers may not be able to advocate on behalf of their constituents whatever their position on the bill may be in Parliament, but there is another effect that is really important to draw attention to. In the limited time window we have before the House is set to rise for the summer, there is other urgent work that we must address.

I point to Bill C-6, which would ban conversion therapy. The House needs to address this because it is urgent that people are not subjected to conversion therapy. I point to Bill C-12, which would provide climate accountability. These measures will not get addressed if the Conservative Party continues to launch procedural tricks to avoid debate on what matters to Canadians. They should put their country ahead of the interests of their party.

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

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

Madam Speaker, those were excellent points raised by my friend for South Okanagan—West Kootenay. It is a very beautiful riding, for those members who have not had the opportunity to visit that part of British Columbia.

I talked in my speech about Bill C-12 and Bill C-6. Those are obvious areas where the government could find co-operation from our party in moving them forward. Also, another bill, Bill C-22, is important to reform our justice system by reforming the Criminal Code and would put some important reforms on the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I just wish, in hindsight, that the Liberals had focused laser-like attention on two, three or four government bills at the most, and tried to shepherd those through. Instead, I made mention of the scatter-gun approach. It was all over the place, with no rhyme or reason, and suddenly we are in late May and June, and the government is looking at the calendar and panicking. That is where we are today.

We are scheduled to return on September 20. There should not be a reason for panic, but we know the Liberals are trying to engineer an election this summer.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I suspect we are debating this motion because the Liberals may not have managed their legislative agenda properly and now we need to work quickly to pass all the important bills.

The NDP also wants Bill C‑12 to be passed quickly. We saw it in committee.

The member said that Bill C‑12 is flawed and that more improvements could have been made to it. However, his party chose to vote against almost every amendment that the Bloc Québécois proposed to improve Bill C‑12 and to make this climate bill truly binding and transparent by establishing accountability mechanisms, which is currently not the case.

I would like to know why the NDP decided to leave their environmental convictions at the door for the debate on Bill C‑12.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get directly involved in the debate on Government Business Motion No. 8, I just want to take a minute to offer my sincere and personal congratulations to three first nations on the southwest coast of Vancouver Island for having come together to directly take ownership of their traditional territories when it comes to managing the resources. This has been a long journey in my riding, and there have certainly been some high emotions present on the subject of old-growth forestry. It is nice to see the first nations come together and really take ownership of this issue. I just want to offer my congratulations to them for taking this important step on this journey.

I will now turn my attention to the business at hand. As my colleagues in the House know, we are here today debating Government Business Motion No. 8. This motion comes before us under the authority granted under Standing Order 27(1).

The main government motion aims to make sure that the House can extend its sitting hours. The government side would like to see us continue to sit on Mondays and Wednesdays until midnight and have the Friday sitting extended until 4:30 in the afternoon. I believe my Conservative colleagues want to see the motion changed so that on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays we would only sit until 8:30 p.m.

I cannot continue to speak about Government Business Motion No. 8 without talking a little about the circumstances in which we find ourselves, which gives me sympathy for Shakespeare’s character Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet when he cried, “A plague o' both your houses!” However, in this case, I think we can substitute the Capulets and the Montagues for the Conservatives and the Liberals. Both of these parties are demonstrating no room for co-operation and no finding of a middle ground in order to move forward important pieces of legislation, which I think many Canadians would like to see us pass.

I will start with my Conservative friends, and because of what happened yesterday and what has already happened this morning in the House, we are not actually going to see a vote on the motion before us until Monday, and so we have lost a lot of very valuable time.

Yesterday, the Conservatives were successful at prolonging the Routine Proceedings of the House by forcing a vote to move to Orders of the Day, which, of course, we as a House rejected, and that then finally allowed the government to actually introduce the motion that is before us. However, this morning, they moved a motion to adjourn the House, then there was a debate on a random committee report, which was then followed by an extended debate on a question of privilege. These parliamentary shenanigans, members can see, are very naked attempts to try to delay, and quite successfully, a vote on the motion before us.

I have been a member of the House since 2015, and experienced members should know that this is a time of year when we usually find the time to come together and usually agree in some straightforward fashion that the House does need some extended sitting hours so that we, as members of Parliament, have the time to represent our constituents and to give voice to important polices and pieces of legislation that concern them. I will never not be in favour of allowing my colleagues to have extra time to do work, which is why I took strong umbrage against the motion to adjourn the House today. It is a Thursday, and unlike a Friday, it is a full sitting day. I think our voters would be shocked to see one party wanting to so blatantly quit the business of the House while there is so much important work to do.

I will leave aside the Conservatives and now turn my eye to the Liberals, because I think it is the height of irony and hypocrisy for the Liberals to stand before us and talk about the dysfunction of the House. When we look at what has been happening in several of the most prominent committees, the Liberals have actively filibustered to prevent those committees from arriving at a point where members can collectively make a decision on a motion that is before them.

I am very lucky to sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I invite my colleagues to substitute on that committee to see what a well-run committee of the House is able to do. We have differing opinion on the agriculture committee, but the one thing that unites us all is the fact that every single one of our parties represents ridings with farmers and has strong agricultural basis. We usually find a way to work together by consensus to arrive at decisions in a respectful way. It does not mean to say that we do not have our debates and our points of disagreement, but it is probably the most ideal demonstration of how committees can work.

The actions of the Liberals at various committee by filibustering are adding to the situation in which we find ourselves. I would have preferred for us to have arrived at a place where we could get a vote on Government Business No. 8, but unfortunately we will have to delay that until Monday because of the special orders we are operating under in this current hybrid system.

Standing Order 27, I believe, dates back to 1982, but even predating that year, it does reflect a long-standing practice that has existed since Confederation for Parliament, and I am sure in the provincial legislatures, to seek the time necessary to advance important legislative agendas.

When we look at why we are where we are today, we also have to identify the fact that the government needs to bear a lot of responsibility for the mismanagement of its own legislative agenda. It has left a lot of very important bills in limbo. We are not very sure if the Liberals will have the runway left for them to arrive at the Governor General's doorstep for the all-important royal assent.

We seem to be operating right now under this sort of manufactured emergency. I use that term because if my colleagues look at the parliamentary calendar, we as a House are scheduled to return on Monday, September 20. Therefore, there really is no reason for this panicked rush to try to get these bills passed or sent to the Senate. We should, under normal circumstances, be planning to have a pleasant summer in our constituencies where we get to engage with our constituents and, hopefully, as the lockdowns lift, attend limited participation in community events. Then as the summer draws to an end, we should look forward to our return to Ottawa, to the House of Commons, on September 20, when we can resume this important business.

The reason we are operating under these circumstances right now, which is quite clear to anyone who has the slightest sense of political know-how and what is quite apparent to many skilled observers, is that the Liberals are very much putting everything into place to call an election. There is no matter of confidence coming up except, of course, the votes on the estimates. There is no motion before the House, no budget, except for Bill C-30, which I believe will pass because we do not want to have an election during this third wave, from which we are recovering. The only plausible reason we would be entering into an election is because the Prime Minister will take it upon himself to visit the Governor General unilaterally and recommend the dissolution of Parliament, as the Liberals seek a new mandate. All signs are pointing toward this.

We should have the time when we return on September 20 to effectively deal with a lot of this. We scheduled a take-note debate next week to give MPs who are not running again the opportunity to give their farewell speeches. The Liberal Party has implemented an emergency order so it can hand-pick preferred candidates instead of letting local riding associations democratically go through the process of selecting their own people. The signs are all there.

When I look at the House schedule for March and April, and the government's completely scattergun approach to how Government Orders were being scheduled at the time, there was really no rhyme, reason or logical pattern to the government bills that came before the House. The Liberals are paying the price for that right now. At the time, they should have identified maybe two or three key priority pieces of legislation and put all their efforts into seeing those across the finish line. Instead, they wasted a lot of time on bills that really were not going anywhere. This is why we see this rush right now.

The Liberals have to realize that this is a minority Parliament. Yes, they are the government, but they were elected to that position with only 33% of the vote in the 2019 election. By virtue of the quirks of our first past the post system, even though the Conservatives got more Canadians to vote for them, the Liberals still ended up with more seats. Therefore, they have to realize that if we are in fact going to have government legislation passed, they have to do so with the consent of another opposition party, and that is a good thing. As an opposition member who sat across the benches from a Liberal majority government, it is good policy and gets more Canadians involved when we have more voices at the table and we try to reach that kind of consensus.

I am proud of how the parties have worked during the worst of the pandemic. If we look back at the history of how we were able to work together in the 2020, I am really proud of the accomplishments that New Democrats were able to provide for Canadians. The major amendments we made to pandemic response programs, such as the Canada emergency response benefit, increasing the Canadian emergency wage subsidy from the initial 10% to 75%, getting those improvements to programs for students and persons with disabilities, putting pressure on the government to fix the much-maligned commercial rental assistance program and ensuring that it was turned into a subsidy that went directly to the tenants instead of having this complex process that involved landlords, are good accomplishments and really demonstrate how minority parliaments are able to work. Again, we are not scheduled to have an election until the year 2023, so theoretically we could have two more years of this, where more voices are at the table for important legislation.

I would like to turn my attention to some of those important bills that will be well served by the extra time we get as a Parliament to debate. I am very proud of the fact that Bill C-15 has made its way to the other place. I want to take the time to recognize Romeo Saganash who brought in Bill C-262, which served as the precursor to Bill C-15. I am glad to see that important legislation seems to be on its way to becoming one of the statutes of Canada and that we will finally have in place an important legislative framework to ensure that federal laws are brought into harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

However, there are two bills in particular that have not yet crossed the House of Commons' finish line, and those are Bill C-6 and Bill C-12.

I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-6 earlier this week. It is incredibly important legislation. It is a very important use of federal criminal law power. It is high time the House of Commons, indeed the wider Parliament of Canada, made this very significant and important amendment to the Criminal Code to ban this practice. It has been rightly criticized by many professional organizations around the world and we know it has done incredible harm to people who have been forced through it.

It is sad to see members of the Conservative Party trying to hold up this legislation. They are clinging to the belief that the definition of conversion therapy in that bill is not specific enough. Those arguments have been discounted. They have been refuted effectively through debate in the House. I look forward to us having the required number of hours to get Bill C-6 passed so we can get it on its way to the Senate. It is incredibly important for us to get the bill passed into law.

The other bill that we hope will be affected in a positive way by the passage of government Motion No. 8 is Bill C-12. I would agree with some people that Bill C-12 still leaves a lot to be desired, but the important thing to remember is that this is a Liberal government bill and improvements have been made. The amendments made at committee have made it a stronger bill from what was initially on offer at the second reading stage. We need to see that bill brought back to the House. We need to see it passed at third reading and passed on to the Senate.

We are in a critical decade for properly addressing climate change and we need to have those legislative targets put in place. I think of all the years that we have lost since Jack Layton first attempted to pass a bill to put in place those legislative targets. I think about the damage that has been done by climate change since then, about how much further Canada would be ahead if we had taken the steps necessary all those years ago.

We see Bill C-12 as an absolute priority and we want to see it positively impacted by the extension of sitting hours. I want to take the time to acknowledge the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the member for Victoria for their incredible work on the bill, helping to shepherd its way through the committee process and for their sustained engagement with the Minister of Environment in laying out our priorities. I want to take the time to acknowledge that.

With Bill C-6, I would be remiss if I did not mention my hon. colleague and neighbour, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, for his incredible advocacy on this issue over the years. He has done yeoman's work on the bill during debate, standing and refuting some of the Conservative arguments against it. He deserves special recognition in attaching importance to that bill and in trying to get it through to the finish line.

I want to reiterate that I was elected to come to this place to work. We all knew when we signed up to be members of Parliament, when we were privileged enough to be elected, that this job would sometimes require us to sit extended hours, to work those long hours, to do the work on behalf of our constituents. We certainly have a lot of stuff pulling at our attention these days. It is a careful balancing act between our critic role, our constituency work and what goes on in the House. However, we all know that this is the time of year when we have to roll up our sleeves, get to work, find a way forward to identify the pieces of legislation that are important to us all and work together to get it done.

I appreciate this opportunity to weigh in on Government Business No. 8. I look forward to us having those extended hours next week so we can attach the priority to those bills I spoke about.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his loyalty to the tradition of the Thursday question.

This afternoon we will continue debating the motion to extend sitting hours. After that, we will proceed to the report stage of Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, 2021, No. 1, and that debate will continue tomorrow.

On Monday, we will resume debate at third reading of Bill C-6, which deals with conversion therapy. Following that, we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act.

Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.

On Wednesday, we will continue debate on Bill C-30.

In closing, I would remind the House that there will be a take-note debate on Tuesday evening so that members not seeking re-election may make a farewell speech, as agreed upon among the parties.

The Environment

[Yasmin Ratansi, Independent, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents and many civil society organizations would like to have a stronger governance mechanism to ensure Canada meets its climate goals. Bill C-12 is a step in the right direction. Canada is warming at double the rate of the rest of the world and, to date, Canada has not met its targets.

With COP26 being held in Glasgow, can the minister advise whether he would institute a more regimented and independent governance structure for Bill C-12 as the U.K. has done?

Ethics

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, that is a bit rich coming from a member who does not respect the work of Parliament. We are meeting here today to discuss a very important bill, and what did this member and his friends on the other side do? They tried to shut down Parliament.

They said they were finished working for the day and were going home. That is unacceptable. We need to keep Parliament open to debate important bills such as Bill C-6, Bill C-12 and Bill C-30. We have to do that for Canadians.

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my charming colleague from La Prairie said earlier, we will support the motion because we like to be constructive.

I completely agree with everything my colleague said. This is like a bad relationship, and I am wondering how we ended up here. I am not here to blame anyone, but I do want to talk about the attitude we are seeing from my Liberal and Conservative colleagues.

The Liberals may have made our Conservative colleagues angry by refusing to provide all of the information required to Parliament. This anger has been evident in recent weeks, and it does not contribute to a productive and harmonious atmosphere here. As we have seen today, our Conservative colleagues have been misusing our time here in the House.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, you may have missed this, but while our Conservative colleagues were requesting votes on some matters of questionable relevance, the charming member for Beauport—Côte‑de‑Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix was singing Qu'il est difficile d'aimer. That about sums up the day we have had.

In the context of the pandemic, the government and the Conservative Party often tell us that we have to take a team Canada approach, even if being part of the team makes it hard to love them at times. I think my colleague's song choice was quite apt because they give us little reason to love them. It is complicated. In the past few weeks between the Conservatives systematically obstructing our work and the Liberals withholding information, it is hard to identify with team Canada.

However, there were some very interesting things on the legislative agenda that were important to me, such as Bill C‑12 on climate. The federal government announced a recovery plan that was meant to be green, but there is no clear direction. It talks about the electrification of transportation and makes an announcement, that I found distressing, on grey hydrogen, which is an oil-based product. I fail to see how that can be considered green. We would be better off with more robust environmental legislation. We are not sure if we will get to the end of the study on Bill C‑12 in parliamentary committee because we are running out of time.

The same goes for Bill C‑10, the culture bill. I know that, in Quebec, the divide between our position and the Conservatives' position on that issue is deep and wide. We believe we should support our cultural sector, but the Conservatives see Bill C‑10 as an attack on freedom of expression. That does not justify bringing Parliament to a standstill by raising points of order that can be a bit silly, in my opinion. We could have made a lot more progress on this bill.

There is also Bill C‑6, the conversion therapy bill, which has aroused what I consider to be the epitome of bad faith. I heard some things last week, some absolutely outrageous things, that made what is left of my hair stand on end. To draw a parallel between sexual orientation and therapies widely justified by certain pathologies is, in my humble opinion, a demonstration of bad faith.

In my introduction, I asked myself how we got to this point. I get the sense that some members of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party cling very tightly to their ideology. Instead of placing public welfare and the public good above all else, they favour private and partisan interests, which is the worst possible thing in politics. As a result, we have hit the limit of what we can do in a hybrid Parliament. We have to acknowledge the fact that dealing with the pandemic is slowing us down too.

The interpreters do an outstanding job. They are essential for us francophones. Everyone knows that there are two official languages in Canada: English and translated English. Without the interpreters, we cannot participate in democratic life. When we do more work in Parliament, they are the ones who end up exhausted. I do not think we take that into account enough.

The interpreters do an excellent job in committee and in the House. Many members of the House sometimes do not use the right equipment. They are not aware of the impact that can have on people's health. This shows the limits of technology in the context of a virtual Parliament but also the appreciation—I do not want to use the word compassion—that we should have for these people.

We need to commend the interpreters. In fact, I would like to take a moment to thank them. They are essential for us. I would also like to thank the members of the technical team. Some of the older members of the House have trouble using new technologies. Finally, I would like to thank the committee clerks. This is not an easy situation since we are going to increase their hours of work. I get the impression that they already have a very heavy workload.

One of the government's responsibilities is also to ensure that the necessary human resources are in place and that they do not burn out. I think maybe the government needs to become a little more aware of that.

In closing, I am not trying to brag, but my party has showed that we were prepared to co-operate. The expression “team Canada” does not really reflect who we are, but we showed that we were prepared to co-operate. I am sure that, if everyone works together, we will be able to finish the work on the important bills, Bills C-12, C-10 and C-6, in the next week.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry. My hon. colleague from Jonquière is absolutely right. I mentioned it, but I used my inner voice. I was unable to speak because my lips were zipped. It happens sometimes and I am very sorry.

You are very kind, Madam Speaker, to give us a chance to share our time. You will not regret it because the member for Jonquière is a great orator. You will be impressed by what he has to say.

Now, for the matter at hand. That reduced the amount of time we would have liked to have in the House. Of course, we must understand that these are extraordinary circumstances. In addition to the pandemic, which is complicating the work that we do in the House and in committee because of limited resources, there is something else going on. I will give my colleagues the scoop. They will be impressed by what I know. We are in a minority Parliament. No one seems surprised to hear that, I see.

This means that an election can happen at any time. Some may expect, and I say so with due regard, that elections may perhaps be called in August, September or October. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister appeared on different television stations. It is as though the Liberals are getting ready. It is as though he had put on his running shoes. It may not mean that he is going to call an election, but it might be about that. Now, we are going to prepare for an election.

There are lots of irons in the fire. A lot of documents are on the table and they just need a little push to be passed. In some cases, it represents the fruit of almost one year's labour. Some bills have been waiting for a long time, and we must try to pass them so we can say that our efforts bore fruit. That is always rewarding.

The Liberals recently told us that they have priorities, including Bill C‑6, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to conversion therapy, Bill C‑10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, Bill C‑12, Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, Bill C‑19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to the COVID‑19 response, and Bill C‑30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1. Those are the government's absolute priorities.

The Liberals also have two other priorities that they would like to refer to committee. I will not speak at length about them, but I am talking about Bills C‑21 and C‑22. We need to move these bills along.

For reasons it has already given, the Bloc Québécois absolutely wants Bill C‑10 to be passed by Parliament and the Senate, because that is what the cultural sector wants.

Madam Speaker, you know Quebec as well as anyone. You are the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert, and there are surely artists in your riding who have called and asked you to help get this bill passed because Quebec's cultural vitality depends on it.

Quebec's culture is very important; it is the soul of a nation. This bill must be passed. Quebeckers are calling for it, the Quebec National Assembly has unanimously called for it, and my colleagues know that Quebec's cultural sector is waiting for this bill. We want to be able to accomplish this goal we have been working so hard on.

Unfortunately, we must face the fact that the Liberal Party is in power. I have been in Parliament for a year and a half. I was expecting to be impressed. I thought it would be impressive to see 338 members of Parliament capably and efficiently managing a huge country. As I watched the Liberals manage their legislative agenda I was disappointed on more than one occasion, and even very disappointed at times. They did not seem to want to get anything done. It never seemed as though they were taking things seriously.

For example, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs worked very hard on Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act regarding the COVID-19 response. We held 11 meetings and heard from 20 experts at all levels, and we finished drafting the report after the Liberals had introduced the bill.

If I were a sensitive guy, I might have thought I had done all that work for nothing. It might have hurt my feelings. Think of how much work went into coming up with solutions to help the government draft a smart bill. Instead, the government chose to introduce its bill before the committee had even completed its study, without even looking at what we had to say. To top it off, the government waited another three months to bring it up for debate, and that debate lasted just four hours.

Then it decided to move time allocation because the matter was suddenly so urgent despite the fact that the government spent just four hours on it over the course of five months, choosing instead to engage in three months' worth of obstruction at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which wanted to move the bill forward but was working on prorogation and had asked the Prime Minister to appear.

Once the obstruction was over, we asked if we could carry on with our work, but the government accused us of delaying the committee's work when it was actually the Liberals who stalled things. Once again, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had to get to work on Bill C‑19 at the last minute.

That is how the government is managing its legislative agenda, and I could go on about that for hours. On Bill C‑10, the committee wanted the ministers to appear but the government stalled, forcing the committee to wait and obstructing the committee's work. When we were finally able to begin, we were like excited puppies waiting for visitors, but the government said we were too late. However, it is the government that has created the problem we are facing today. We are being squeezed like lemons, and the government thinks that if the committee members are not studying an issue, there is something wrong with them. This is what happens when the legislative agenda is not managed properly.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois will support this motion because we want to move things forward for Quebec.

The Environment

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

Madam Speaker, once again, Bill C-12 is a ground-breaking piece of legislation for Canada, establishing a legal framework for Canada to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 and help the globe avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

There are many years before 2050 and we know that our actions in emissions reductions in those intervening years are just as important as where we are in 2050. That is why Bill C-12 requires the government to set emissions reduction targets at five-year intervals starting in 2030 all the way until 2050, and it will also require the government to report on its progress toward achievement of those targets throughout. Of course, the requirement to develop emissions reduction plans is also an important component of the legislation.

With respect to a near-term target, a new provision was added during committee review to require the inclusion of an interim GHG emissions objective for 2026. Adding an interim objective provides a mid-point check-in between now and 2030. The 2026 objective will offer an opportunity to have a more detailed look in terms of whether we are still on track for 2030 or not, and do the course correction accordingly.

Understandingly, the previous emissions reduction commitments made by signatories to the Paris Agreement are not enough to hold global warming below 1.5°C. There has been a global call for increased ambition and climate action. Canada heard this call, and in April at the Leaders Summit on Climate, announced an enhanced emissions reduction target of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030. I am pleased to announce that because of amendments adopted by the House of Commons and the committee, this target will be embedded directly in the text of the bill.

To conclude, the measures contained in the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act would ensure that there is a clear process in place for setting targets, as well planning and reporting on progress, including in the key period between now and 2030.

Finally, along with the reporting requirements under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the act would ensure that the Government of Canada is committed and accountable for all the years to come in charting Canada's path to net-zero emissions by 2050.

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

Madam Speaker, I am resuming a question I asked previously. The minister of fisheries answered the question, but it pertains to climate targets and climate accountability. I made the point in question period that, when we talk about climate targets, they are not political. Climate targets are deeply about the science.

The minister of fisheries replied at the time that the new targets the Prime Minister had just announced at the Earth Day summit with Joe Biden were, in fact, to be put into the law and actually reflected in part of what is called the net-zero emissions accountability act, Bill C-12. Since then, the government decided not to put those targets in the act.

The key point I want to make today in our adjournment proceedings is about the nature of what we committed to do under the Paris Agreement in 2015 at COP 21. The key thing we committed to do was to work with all the other nations on earth to hold the global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5° above what those levels were before the industrial revolution, and to certainly hold it as far below 2° as possible.

Why does this matter? The survival of human civilization is very much at risk if we miss these targets. We are now more than 1°C in global average temperature increase above where we were as a society and a planet before the industrial revolution. Going above 1.5° is actually not a safe zone; it is a danger zone. It involves a significant risk to human civilization's survival. Going above 2° would put our future generations, our own children, very much at risk. That is why the targets are not political. They are about the science.

I am heartbroken that the government chose to put forward its so-called climate accountability legislation, which aims for a level of reductions of emissions that are not tied to the science. It actually puts us at risk. There is a lot of clamouring around Bill C-12 and the title “net-zero”, but net zero by 2050 is the wrong target. Net zero by 2050 does not hold to 1.5°. In the words of Greta Thunberg, net zero by 2050 is “surrender” without short-term and near-term targets that ensure global emissions are cut in half by 2030.

I have just this moment left clause-by-clause as it ends on Bill C-12. The milestone year remains 2030, but the large problem remains that, if we do not improve what we have agreed to do, the target of 40% to 45% below our 2005 levels by 2030 referenced when I put this forward in question period is not close to being what we committed to do in Paris.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set forth what all countries on earth have to do. Canada has a larger burden than most, because it is the only country in the industrialized world to see our emissions go up so very much since 1990 and go up since Paris.

We have a commitment to do better and to do more. That means that we should be revising our target upward and we should not delude ourselves into believing that net zero by 2050 is anything other than a public relations gloss on what the science tells us we must do. We are in a climate emergency. We need to act like it and ban fracking, cancel the TMX pipeline and do those things in our power, as a wealthy industrialized society, to move to climate security.

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

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

Madam Speaker, as you know, the NDP members have the reputation of being the worker bees of the House of Commons.

It is in that spirit that we proposed, not a few weeks ago and not in April but on March 7, that we start extended evening sittings because we believed it was important to get to legislation that was important for Canadians. On March 7, we wrote to all the House leaders to say that we should start streamlining, because quite frankly the government's approach on the House agenda has been absolutely inept.

We will be supporting the motion to extend the hours, but the real question is why did the Liberals wait so long? Why, on a key bill such as Bill C-12, which is so fundamentally important but was deeply flawed, did the NDP have to drag the Liberals kicking and screaming to improve the bill? Now, with a few days left in the session, the Liberals are scrambling to get it through.

Why did the Liberals wait so long when the NDP proposed this route on March 7?

[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 am very glad that we were able to get to this point. I am concerned and disappointed, even in the last half-hour. I think we need to realize that, although members of the Conservative Party will say they want more debate time, in reality nothing could be further from the truth. I would argue that ultimately the Conservatives have been very much a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. I would like to explain why it is so important that we pass the motion that the minister of procurement has just presented.

The pandemic really challenged all of us. We needed to find new ways to get the job done, the job that Canadians have been very much relying on us to do. We gradually brought in a hybrid Parliament to ensure that MPs could do their job from wherever they are in the country. This was so it would be inclusive, whether they are up north, the west coast, the east coast or in central Canada, like me here in Winnipeg. We found ways for the House to debate and pass legislation that would ultimately help Canadians during the pandemic. Many bills were passed to ensure that millions of Canadians had the funds that they needed to put food on their table, pay the rent, cover mortgages and so on.

We have a number of pieces of legislation before the House in one form or another. I would like to give some examples of the legislation that are in limbo because the Conservatives are more interested in playing political games than they are in serving the best interests of Canadians. I would like to highlight a few of those pieces of legislation and then make a point as to why this particular motion is necessary.

We have seen motions of this nature previously. I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years now, and I have seen it at the provincial level and at the national level. Political parties of all stripes have recognized that there is a time in which we need to be able to bring in extended hours. In the most part it is meant to contribute to additional debate and to allow the government to pass important legislation. That is really what this motion is all about.

Looking at the last vote we just participated in, it would appear as though Bloc members, New Democrats and Greens are in agreement with the members of the Liberal caucus that we need to sit extra hours. My appeal is to the Conservatives to stop playing their political, partisan games and start getting to work.

There is nothing wrong with sitting until midnight two to four times between now and mid-June. Stephen Harper did it. He had no qualms moving motions of this nature. Yes, we will also sit a little extra time on Friday afternoons. I believe Canadians expect nothing less from all members of the House.

When Canadians decided to return the government in a minority format, it was expected that not only we as the governing party would receive a message, but also that all members of the House would receive a message. The Conservative opposition has a role to play that goes beyond what they have been playing and what we have been witnessing since November or December of last year. I would cross the line to say that it is not being a responsible official opposition.

I spent well over 20 years in opposition. The Conservative Party, with its destructive force, is preventing the government of the day and other members, not only government members, from moving the legislation forward. I appeal to the official opposition to not only recognize there is a genuine need to move this legislation forward, but also recognize that, at the end of the day, we extend hours to accommodate additional debate.

My concern is that the Conservatives will continue the political, partisan games, at great expense to Canadians. I will give an example. Bill C-30 is at report stage and third reading. We were supposed to debate that bill today. Chances are that we will not get to that bill today. We have not been able to get to other legislation because of the tactics of the official opposition, the reform Conservative Party, as I often refer to it.

The last budget legislation was Bill C-14. The first female Minister of Finance of Canada presented an economic update to the House back in late November, and the legislation was introduced in December. For days, the Conservatives would not allow it to pass. This was legislation that helped businesses and Canadians in many ways, yet the Conservatives saw fit to filibuster it. Bill C-30 will pass. It is budget legislation. It is not an option for the government.

Bill C-12 is the net-zero emissions legislation. If members canvass their constituents, they will find out that it does not matter where they live in Canada, our constituents are concerned about the environment and are telling all members of the House that we need to do more. Bill C-12, the net-zero emissions bill, is very important legislation. It answers, in good part, the call from Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

To a certain degree, we have seen a change in attitude by some Conservatives with their new leadership. Some in their caucus do not support it, but the leadership agrees that there is a need for a price on pollution. They seem to be coming around, even though they are five, six or seven years late. Surely to goodness, they would recognize the value of the legislation. Bill C-12 is stuck in committee.

What about Bill C-10? Bill C-10 would update very important legislation that has not been updated for 30 years, since 1990 or 1991. Let us think of what the Internet was like back in 1990. I can recall sitting in the Manitoba legislature, hearing the ring, the buzzing and then a dial tone. We can remember how slow it was.

I will tell my Conservative friends that things have changed. Now all sorts of things take place on the Internet. This is important legislation. The NDP, the Greens and the Bloc support the legislation. The Conservatives come up with a false argument, dig their feet in and then say they are not being given enough time, yet they have no problem squandering time.

Thankfully, because of the Bloc, we were able to put some limits on the committee, so we could get it though committee. If the Bloc did not agree with the government and with that concurrence, it would never pass the committee stage. There is absolutely no indication that the Conservatives have any intent of seeing Bill C-10 pass through committee stage.

If members have been listening to the chamber's debates in regard to Bill C-6, they have heard the Conservatives disagree with another piece of legislation. They say they do not support mandatory conversion therapy, and they are using the definition as a scapegoat to justify their behaviour on the legislation. Once again they are the only political entity inside the House of Commons that is preventing this legislation or putting it in jeopardy. The leadership of the Conservative Party might think one thing, but the reality is that the behaviour of the Conservative Party has put Bill C-6 in limbo.

I could talk about Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Members know that the Conservatives have been using firearms as a tool for many years. Even when I was an MLA in the mid-nineties, I can remember the Conservative Party using firearms as a tool, and nothing has really changed. The bill is still in second reading. There is no indication at all that the Conservatives are willing to see that piece of legislation pass. Members can check with some of the communities and stakeholders that are asking and begging not only the government, but also opposition parties, to let this legislation pass.

That is not to mention Bill C-22, which is about criminal justice reform. That is another piece of legislation that, again, the Conservative Party has given no indication it intends to let see the light of day or go to committee.

Another piece of legislation that is important not only to me, but should be to all members of the House, is Bill C-19. I understand this important piece of legislation is going to committee tomorrow, but if we apply what we have seen at second reading to the committee stage, it is going to be a huge concern. This bill would give Elections Canada additional powers to administer an election in a safer, healthier way for voters and for Elections Canada workers. It is a good piece of legislation. I am somewhat familiar with it because of my role as parliamentary secretary to the minister, who I know has worked very hard on bringing this legislation forward and wants to see it passed. It is a piece of legislation on which the Conservatives have said we should have more debate.

The government attempted to bring this legislation in a long time ago. It tried to get it to committee a long time ago. One day I was ready and primed to address Bill C-19, and the Conservatives' game at that time was to bring in a concurrence motion, because if they did that they could prevent debate on Bill C-19. That is what they did, and it was not the first time. The Conservative Party does not even recognize the value of it. It is a minority situation. We do not know when there is going to be an election. It seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to get Bill C-19 passed. As I say, it is at the committee stage today. I hope that the Conservative Party will see the merits of passing that bill out of the committee stage.

At the beginning of the pandemic, there seemed to be a greater sense of co-operation. From the very beginning, the Prime Minister has been very clear: He and the Government of Canada have had as their first priority minimizing the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and being there in a real and tangible way for Canadians. That is for another speech in which I can expand on the particular argument the Prime Minister put forward.

We can do other things. We have seen that in some of the legislative initiatives that we have taken. As I say, at the very beginning there was a high sense of co-operation and the team Canada approach applied within the House of Commons. The Conservatives started falling off the track last June. One year later, there is no sign that the Conservative Party recognizes the value of working together.

I would remind my Conservative friends that, as we in government realize, it is a minority government. If someone gives me 12 graduates from Sisler High School, or any high school in the north end of Winnipeg, whether it is Maples Collegiate, Children of the Earth High School, R.B. Russell Vocational High School or St. John's High School, I can prevent the government from being able to pass legislation. It does not take a genius to do that.

We need co-operation from the opposition, and the Conservative Party has been found wanting in that. It has not been co-operative in the last number of months. I find that shameful. Obviously, the Conservatives are not listening to what Canadians expect of them. In fact, what we have seen is delay and more delay, to the point that it becomes obstruction.

Conservatives have obstructed the work of the House as it has debated Bill C-14. If I were to draw comparisons, I would compare Bill C-14 and Bill C-3. Bill C-14 is vitally important to all of us. Canadians needed Bill C-14 passed, but look at the amount of debate and filibustering we had from the official opposition.

On the other hand, Bill C-3 was also a very important piece of legislation. All parties supported it. In fact, the initial idea came from the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. Everyone supported it. We spent many hours and days debating that piece of legislation, when we could have been debating other legislation. Not that the other legislation was not important, but we all know there is no time process outside of time allocation to get government legislation through. That is in a normal situation, when we have an opposition party that recognizes the value of actual debate of government agenda items that they should pass through, but they did not. Instead, they would rather debate it.

We have moved motions to have extended sittings in the past to accommodate additional debate. I say, in particular to my Conservative friends, that if they are going to behave in this fashion they should not criticize the government for not affording time to debate bills. What a bunch of garbage. They cannot have it both ways. I appeal to the Conservative Party to recognize true value. They should work for Canadians and let us see if we can make a more positive contribution and start working together for the betterment of all.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we put forward an amendment in committee to include Canada's target in the legal text of the bill.

It saddens me that the Bloc Québécois tried so hard to prevent the committee from moving forward. If we want Bill C-12 to pass to contribute to the fight against climate change, we hope the Bloc Québécois will support us on that.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary told me yesterday that he was open to amendments and was pleased to be able to count on members of the Bloc. The minister's discourse today is not quite the same. Once again, what he is saying is false. The Bloc Québécois is trying to amend Bill C-12 to include the government's 2030 climate change targets, and the government is fighting tooth and nail, with the NDP's support, to stop us. That is not openness; it is obstruction.

I repeat, it was the government itself that set the targets. Why, then, is it so afraid to include those targets in the bill, if it has any intention at all of meeting them?

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

Mr. Speaker, on April 22, Ottawa announced its new target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 50% by 2030. The same day, the government promised me in the House that it would include this new target in Bill C-12, but it did not. The government did not include this new target in Bill C-12. Worse still, the NDP agrees and is joining forces with the government to fight the Bloc Québécois and keep us from amending the bill.

The government chose the target. I would hope it believes it is capable of reaching it. Why then is it refusing to include it in the bill?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act has robust accountability and transparency, just to name a few aspects. It has a legally binding process for the federal government to set climate targets and bring forward plans to meet those targets, rigorous ongoing process reports, yearly reports by the independent advisory body and ongoing audits by the Office of the Auditor General.

As we have previously stated, we are open to amendments. We are pleased to see members from the Bloc and NDP help move Bill C-12 to committee.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 22, Ottawa announced new greenhouse gas reduction targets of at least 40% by 2030. That same day, the Bloc Québécois asked the government if it would insert that target in its Bill C-12.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage promised this would happen and said, “Yes, we will include Canada's 2030 climate change target in Bill C-12.” His government not only failed to do that, or to tell the truth, but it has also prevented the Bloc Québécois from inserting it in its place. Why is that?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his passion about Canada achieving net zero by 2050, which is a commitment the government has made through Bill C-12 that is making its way through committee.

Indigenous knowledge forms a central part of that bill and of the expert committee involved. That is a commitment by the government, and something we will continue to do to ensure that Canada meets its targets of net zero by 2050.

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

Madam Speaker, tomorrow is World Environment Day.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that, when Ottawa announced its new greenhouse gas reduction targets, it promised to give those targets force of law. On April 22, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said, “we will include Canada's 2030 climate change target in Bill C-12”.

Not only did the government not do that, but it is also fighting the Bloc Québécois in committee to prevent us from doing so in its stead. Why is it refusing to include the targets in the bill? Is it because it has no intention of meeting them?

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually tonight in adjournment proceedings to address a question I initially asked on April 15 of this year.

People who have been paying close attention to the climate agenda and our rapidly shrinking opportunity to make the difference that we need to make, as time passes and our emissions are still rising, will recall the April 22 climate summit hosted by President Joe Biden, held virtually with leaders from 40 countries.

On April 15, first I noted that our emissions kept rising right up until COVID, with recently announced reports to that effect. My second point was that a report from a news outlet called The Breach said a special cabinet committee had formed during COVID with representation of senior levels of government from natural resources, finance, environment and elsewhere that was actually focused on helping the oil and gas sector. My third point was that our subsidies continued to go up.

The minister's response was that we would see a new target soon. I return to the fundamental question on the not-so-new target now. Since 2015, the Liberal government has proclaimed that Canada is back and clearly understands that the climate issue is real. Has it actually grasped the science? This is my core question.

I will say again that as well-intentioned as the government might be, it does not seem to understand that we must hold to no more than a 1.5°C global average temperature increase above the global average temperature at the time of the Industrial Revolution. Blowing past this target by failing to put in place rigorous targets now will lead us to a place where we do not get a do-over. We cannot fix it later.

From the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its special report on 1.5°C, which came out in October 2018, we know that if the world community does not move mountains in this coming decade, it will be too late.

In his book Values, Mark Carney said that understanding carbon budgets is very important. On page 273, he said:

If we had started in the year 2000, we could have hit 1.5°C by halving emissions every 30 years. Now, we must cut our emissions in half every 10 years. If we wait another four years, we will have to halve our emissions every single year. If we wait another eight years, our 1.5°C carbon budget will be exhausted.

The Prime Minister attended the Biden summit. He announced a new target and proclaimed that it was ambitious. It is not. It does not meet the demands of science, and neither does Bill C-12, which we are currently debating in the environment committee. They have good intentions, great press coverage and good public relations, but they fail to do what is necessary.

Years ago, I marched with my daughter in the streets of New York in the lead-up to the COP before the Paris agreement. I saw a sign as we marched that said, “It's time to stop debating what is possible and start doing what is necessary”.

We have to cancel the TMX pipeline. We cannot afford $17 billion on a pipeline that blows our carbon budget. The choices are stark. The government is failing.

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

Mr. Speaker, this week is Environment Week in Canada. My question to the Prime Minister is this. Would it not be a wonderful thing if, during Environment Week, the environment committee strengthened Bill C-12, the so-called net-zero climate accountability act?

Specifically, one of my amendments has been rejected, and I would be so grateful to know from the Prime Minister why the government does not want the climate targets and climate plans to be based on the best available science. Right now the bill says the best available science must be merely taken into account. Surely we would not just take it into account when we look at COVID. We base our decisions on science.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy being here in the House to talk about various bills. I have to say it has been a while. I feel a bit rusty, but I would like to take this opportunity to thank the House of Commons staff who support us and make these hybrid sittings possible. When we are at home, we can be in our ridings. I am grateful to them because I think it is just incredible that this all came together so quickly. I also want to thank the interpreters. Their work is so important, and we do not say that often enough.

We have waited two years for the Liberal government's budget. Let us not blame everything on the pandemic. Canada was the only G7 country that did not introduce a budget in 2020. All the provinces introduced budgets too. The federal government kept us waiting.

Admittedly, there are some good things in this budget, which I will come back to. However, there are some gaping omissions. The Bloc Québécois has made its position clear on those. My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean outlined them clearly earlier: seniors and health have been forgotten. It is quite ironic, given that we are experiencing one of the worst health crises in our history. We think that that is where investment is needed, to support the health care systems of the provinces and Quebec.

The government ignored the unanimous request made by the House through the motion that was tabled by the Bloc Québécois and accepted. It also ignored the unanimous requests of the provincial premiers, who asked for health transfers to be increased from 22% to 35%.

As I was just saying, it is inconceivable that we could be going through a health crisis without making the necessary investments in health care. Seniors are not getting enough. We did see a glimmer of hope. The Liberal government got in on a promise it made in 2019 to increase old age security. That is great, but the government is not going far enough. It is forgetting seniors aged 65 to 74 who are also in financial difficulty, just like those aged 75 and over. The government is increasing pensions for seniors aged 75 and over, but only by roughly $60 a month, which we do not think is not enough. We in the Bloc Québécois have been asking for an increase of $110 per month, and we will continue to lead that debate. The House has not heard the last of the Bloc on this issue, because the people of all regions of Quebec deserve it.

This comment comes up a lot in my riding. Grandparents, who have worked incredibly hard all their lives, feel so neglected by the federal government, even though they are the ones who have suffered the most in this pandemic, both mentally and physically. This virus can be extremely harmful to their health. It is appalling that they are being let down like this, when we thought we were making progress with this request.

I would like to talk about the money being allocated to the tourism industry in this budget. For a region like mine, the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé, tourism is extremely important. The fact that some emergency assistance programs, such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the rent subsidy, are being extended will certainly help many businesses back home. I commend that, but there are businesses that were in financial difficulty before the pandemic or that were having a hard time finding workers. Some other programs that were necessary for some people, such as the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, are now hobbling business owners. It was already hard enough to find people who wanted to go to work, and things did not get any easier once the situation stabilized a bit. There were pros and cons to this program. It is a little frustrating because business owners are the ones paying the price. It is important to have targeted assistance for this type of sector, but that is not really what we are seeing. Yes, a few million dollars has been allocated to the tourism industry, but the devil is often in the details. When we look a bit closer, hundreds of millions of dollars are going into ad campaigns to make sure people go visit the various regions of Canada. That is good, but is that really the way to help our industries and our small businesses? That is the question. I think we can do several things at the same time.

Allow me to share some figures. The tourism industry is a vital part of the economy in the Gaspé region. There are 700 businesses and nearly 7,000 jobs, 50% of which are permanent. This is not just a seasonal industry.

Businesses in the area benefit from tourism year-round, which is good. The region saw around $16 billion in economic spinoffs in 2019, but that figure dropped to $5 billion in 2020. This more than $10-billion drop represents a lot of money, and business owners are the ones taking the hit. It is shameful that they are not getting direct assistance, which we have been calling for since the beginning of the pandemic. The message does not seem to be getting through to the other side of the House, though.

As we gradually reopen over the summer, I truly hope that the industry will recover. However, we must bear in mind that there are still no international tourists or cruises, so we cannot expect to see the same results, the same amount of money coming in. The sector will need targeted assistance from the federal government, and that is what we are calling for.

When I see all the different Canada-wide programs that are being announced, such as the national child care program, I realize that it may be good news for the provinces that do not have this type of program. However, Quebec already has a day care program.

We have heard the Prime Minister speak about an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec to redirect these funds. I do not really understand what is meant by an asymmetrical agreement, but it looks like interference to me. The Government of Quebec has been managing its day care system very well for many years. If the federal government decides to implement a similar program, it must give Quebec the money it is owed with no strings attached. Letting Quebec invest these amounts as it sees fit seems perfectly logical to me.

In regions like mine, there is definitely a shortage of day care spaces. Elected officials and families are saying so. However, it is up to Quebec to decide how to use these funds in its system. I believe that it is in the federal government's interest to redistribute these funds without conditions, but that is not the message we are hearing at this time.

I would also like to talk a bit about the environment. Bill C-30 offers no details about how the government plans to invest the funds announced in the budget. I hope that will be revealed in another bill soon because we are talking about $17 billion in green recovery funding. As I said earlier, $17 billion seems like a heck of a lot of money, but consider this: It is exactly what the government will have invested in the Trans Mountain pipeline alone.

Considering the fact that the government continues to invest heavily in the oil and gas industry, we have to wonder how committed it is to fighting climate change. That is a little frustrating too. The budget allocates a mere $1 billion to climate change adaptation. People in the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé are very concerned about shoreline erosion, and they are experiencing more and more floods. Stakeholders in the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé have said how disappointing it is to see so little money invested in adaptation. The Conseil régional de l'environnement du Bas-Saint-Laurent has pointed out that rebuilding roads only to have them destroyed again the next year is not good enough. What people need is a multi-year framework and actions that will stand the test of time.

I still have several things to say, so I will say them quickly. In the budget, the government announced that, if all of the proposed measures were put in place, Canada would be able to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 36%. However, according to people in my region, that reduction is not enough. The executive director of the Conseil régional de l'environnement du Bas-Saint-Laurent thinks that number is all well and good but that it is lower than Quebec's commitments and the targets adopted by many countries that are parties to the Paris Agreement. The federal government itself realized that several days later and announced a range of higher targets. Ambition is all well and good, but the measures that were announced are not consistent with that ambition. We need to look at how we can align all of that.

Since I do not have much time left, I will close by saying that members are beginning the clause-by-clause examination of Bill C-12 tomorrow in committee. I heard the minister assure us that he was going to include this new target in the bill, but that does not seem to be the case based on what we are seeing in the amendments. I am anxious to see how the government will keep its promise with regard to fighting climate change, because that is the challenge of this century, and we really need to address it.

Finance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Louis-Saint-Laurent.

This afternoon, we will continue the debate on the opposition motion moved by the Conservative Party.

Tomorrow we will start with the vote on the ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19. We will then move on to second reading consideration of Bill S-3, an act to amend the Offshore Health and Safety Act.

On Monday, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.

Tuesday will be an allotted day.

Finally, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of next week will be dedicated for debate on the budget bill.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, climate targets are not about politics, they are about science, and even though Canada has improved our target last week at President Biden's climate summit, we are not aligned with the science. Speaker after speaker at that summit made it clear that we must achieve the bulk of reductions this decade if we are going to hold to 1.5°C.

Will the minister and the Prime Minister be open to changing Bill C-12 with a specific target due in 2025 baked into the bill?

Bill C-12—Time Allocation Motion

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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—

Bill C-12—Notice of time allocation motion

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of the second reading stage 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the debate on the budget presented on Monday by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

Tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-21, the firearms act, at second reading.

When we return on Monday, we will have the fourth and final day of debate on the budget.

On Tuesday, we will resume the second reading debate 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.

On Wednesday of next week, we will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response).

On Thursday, we will have the first of eight opposition days in the current supply cycle.

Finally, on Friday morning, we will start with a debate on Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, followed in the afternoon by a debate on Bill S-3, an act to amend the Offshore Health and Safety Act.

That is all.

The Environment

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

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

I would like to inform her that Canada submits an annual greenhouse gas inventory to the United Nations as part of its commitments.

The environment commissioner and the Auditor General conduct regular audits of the government's efforts to fight climate change.

Furthermore, with Bill C-12, we are creating an advisory body to help us and to ensure that Canada will meet its targets.

We are one of the few countries in the world to have a bill like Bill C-12, and we urge the House to act quickly to pass this important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I applaud good intentions and ambition, but if the targets are not included in legislation, they will have no impact. It is a good thing that today's good intentions are better than yesterday's, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

At present, Ottawa is not adopting any new legal obligation to meet either this new target or the old target by 2030. The government is not bound to have any independent reporting, and it is not setting any deadline for an interim progress update in the next 10 years.

Will the government have the courage to amend Bill C-12 to entrench its target in law?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

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

There is a word for what she is describing. It is called ambition. We need to be ambitious in the fight against climate change, whether in Canada, the United States or elsewhere on the planet.

That is why Prime Minister Trudeau is very pleased to join his counterparts from around the world today at this conference, to take ambitious action in the fight against climate change.

To answer my colleague's question, yes, we will include Canada's 2030 climate change target in Bill C-12.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to keep track of this government's greenhouse gas reduction targets. On Sunday, its reduction target was 30% over 2005 levels by 2030. In the budget, on Monday, it was 36%. Today it is 40%, or perhaps even 45% if things go well. That is a lot of changes for one week, and yet it is nothing but hot air if it does not have the force of law.

The government introduced Bill C-12, its climate accountability bill. The government is free to pick its target, but my question is this: Will the government amend Bill C-12 to include that target in the text of the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, happy Earth Day. It is a privilege to table e-petition 3184, which was initiated by constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith. The petitioners call upon the government to take urgent action, based on science and independent expertise, to make Bill C-12 a world-class climate law by adopting the following three amendments to the bill before it passes.

The first amendment is to set the first emission target for 2025, strengthen the roles of the advisory body and the environmental commissioner, and ban fossil fuel executives from the advisory panel.

The second amendment is that Bill C-12 should be aligned with Canada's commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, putting workers and communities first with no exceptions. It should set targets for sustainable job creation to ensure a just transition for all workers.

The third amendment is to create true legal accountability for the government by setting clear, unconditional obligations for the Minister of Environment to meet, not just plan to meet, actual targets.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear that this is a pamphlet that will do less and cost Canadians more. After fighting climate action for years, Conservatives have promised to stop sending rebates back to families, and instead create an incomprehensive reward system where the more they burn, the more they earn.

Compare that to our net-zero bill, Bill C-12, which is up for debate today. It would require us to set meaningful legislative targets and was a key commitment we made to Canadians in the last election. I sincerely hope all members will allow the debate to conclude today, so that we can—

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative leader told Canadians that he would bring forward a serious and comprehensive climate plan. Instead, all we got was a 15-page pamphlet that did not mention science and does not help us meet our climate goals. To top it off, the Conservatives continue to delay serious legislative action on climate with the net-zero act. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change please update this House on the Conservative climate pamphlet and the Conservatives' filibuster of Bill C-12?

[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, I appreciate the question from my good friend.

This afternoon, we will complete second reading debate of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Tomorrow morning we will start with the debate of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), followed by the debate at second reading 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 in the afternoon.

On Monday of next week, we hope to complete second reading debate of Bill C-11, an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts. As all members are aware, at 4:00 p.m. that day, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will present the budget. Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday will all be days reserved for budget debate.

Finally, on Friday, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak virtually today, and I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for this opportunity to split the time.

I want to acknowledge that I am on the traditional territory of W̱SÁNEĆ nation, part of the Coast Salish nations of the beautiful area of Saanich—Gulf Islands. Over time perhaps we could change the name Saanich to W̱SÁNEĆ to spell it in SENĆOŦEN, because that is the source of the name of the Saanich Peninsula. I am honoured to represent the wonderful constituents of this area.

I am taking a different approach to looking at Bill C-14, and I am afraid that I may end up being very boring. That is because we have before us really important legislation. I wish it had been passed long ago, when it first came forward, because it does provide important supports, as my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith just said, that we will support from the Green Party: supports for low and middle income Canadians; relief on student debt; more support for virtual care, mental health and substance abuse programs; and help for businesses with their rent. These are things that we would like to see passed, but that does not mean that we do not have some significant concerns about the fall economic statement and the upcoming budget.

This is where I am afraid I am going to perhaps be boring. I would love to give a speech to make the point that my colleague from the Bloc Québécois just made, that our recovery needs to be focused on renewable energy, on a green economic recovery and the need to actually hit our Paris commitment to hold to 1.5°. The current government legislation in Bill C-12 does not come close to ensuring that we have anything like accountability for this.

I want to focus on the question of what our role as parliamentarians is when we look at budgets. What is our role as parliamentarians when we look at the fall economic statement? What is our job? In theory, parliamentarians are responsible for the public purse, and some will know that when I start speaking in the House of Commons about what is supposed to be happening in theory, members can be pretty sure it is not what is happing in practice.

We are responsible, as one of our core jobs as members of Parliament, to control the public purse. If we are going to control the public purse, it suggests that we should actually know about the measures we are voting for, be able to analyze the budget and get enough information to be effective and responsible parliamentarians.

I will be speaking in general first and then zooming in on the specifics. In my experience of reading budgets, and that goes back to well before I was honoured to be elected in this place in 2011, I used to go to pre-budget lock-ups. This was when I was the executive director of Sierra Club Canada and was one of the founders of something called the green budget coalition, and I sat down with the minister of finance and worked through budgets after the fact. In pre-budget lock-ups I would usually bring previous years' budgets with me so that I could quickly reference which department was getting more money, which department was getting less money and what this looked like in terms of our accountability and where the money was going.

I have been trying to remember the last time I saw a budget that actually included the numbers. This will strike Canadians as odd. How can we have a fall economic statement or a budget that does not include the numbers? Well, there are numbers there, but they tend to unrelated one from the other.

In preparing for this speech, I found a column from December 2015 that was written by three friends of mine: Kevin Page, our former parliamentary budget officer; Bob Plamondon, a noted Conservative commentator; and former MP and friend, Pat Martin. They penned an article for the Globe and Mail on this very point. Members of Parliament do not have enough information to actually do the job we are supposed to do, which is controlling the public purse.

To quote my three colleagues, in the article they wrote, “It is well nigh impossible for mere mortals to follow money.” It is well nigh impossible. We used to have budgets where we could actually add up the various departmental budgets and get to the number that the government was going to spend.

Departmental budgets stopped appearing in the spring budgets some time after Stephen Harper became prime minister. I have been trying to remember the last time I actually got a budget to read that included what most people would consider a budget. For some time, I have said that we should stop calling it the budget, which we will see next week, April 19, or the fall economic statement, or the spring budget, Unless the new Minister of Finance is going to do something remarkable and actually give us the numbers, what we have had for many years now has been what I have referred to as “the big thick spring brochure”. It is about party policy. It is about governmental policy. It sometimes announces how much will be spent in an area, but there is nothing we can use for purposes of comparison. Is that new money? Is that from a departmental A-base that they had last year and is just being reallocated? Can we track what is being spent, where the priorities are and can we add this all up and get a number we can count on?

On top of that general statement of a lack of transparency around numbers, now we have gone from what was spent in the 2019-20 budget frame, which was $363 billion, and in 2020-21 we are spending something in the order of $642 billion. Now, this was all approved by us as parliamentarians and mostly by unanimous consent. Because of the nature of COVID, we worked fast, and goodness knows, I have nothing but praise for all the hard work of civil servants and I include our ministers. Everyone has worked very hard to roll out the programs. However, by this point, more than a year into the pandemic, we should know how those programs are doing and where the money has actually gone.

We now have, believe it or not, over 90 different new COVID emergency programs. Can we trace them? Can we track them? Do we know where the money is going? In big numbers, in the rough sense, we do, because we know how much went to CERB, wage supports and so on.

Again, I turn to Kevin Page, whom I referenced earlier. He was our first parliamentary budget officer and is now the president of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa. In December, he put forward an opinion piece looking at the fall economic statement and identifying the transparency gaps. Kevin Page said that “...There is limited disaggregated administrative data related to people, sectors and regions, and virtually no data and analysis on the monthly flow of supports.”

My colleague for Nanaimo—Ladysmith mentioned other countries that have done better at getting to zero on COVID as opposed to trying to just flatten the curve to avoid having our emergency rooms overwhelmed. Other countries decided to actually try to eliminate the virus. Well, here we are. Some of those countries that did better than us have also done better on financial reporting. New Zealand publishes very clear visuals that any citizen can use to track and understand where the money is being spent. Australia publishes detailed monthly reports explaining their statistics, and so does the U.K. All of these countries provide more information. The United States provides a detailed dashboard so that any citizen can track all government programs from one place. Canada does not have any of that in place for people to track where the money is going by sector. We know in general that this kind of money went to individuals because it was the CERB, this kind of money went to businesses because they were employers, but we do not have details.

On the fall economic statement, our current Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, commented favourably on the fact that the fall economic statement does include clarity around some essential fiscal planning information, such as the detailed five-year fiscal outlook, but Mr. Giroux also commented, as had—

The Environment

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I know the report the hon. member is quoting includes money that the NDP has voted in favour of to clean up abandoned orphan wells. We are working on ending fossil fuel subsidies and we have taken real action on climate change and will continue to do so.

I hope members of the NDP continue to push forward for real action and help us move Bill C-12 through Parliament and into committee.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his points on how the Liberals have been scheduling an hour of debate here and an hour of debate on another bill there, without giving them enough time to move forward.

I am thinking in particular of Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. It has been months and the government has yet to really schedule enough time to finish second reading. The Liberals either need to admit that climate accountability is not a priority for them or schedule the time. I hope they do not use their own game playing to delay important legislation as an excuse for an election.

On the privacy bill, does the member agree—

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to join the debate today on the private member's bill of my hon. colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. It raises some important questions on the role of the Canada pension plan.

I believe that the vast majority of Canadians do not want their money invested in companies that do business in a way that is abhorrent to Canadian values. Increasingly, Canadians, especially younger Canadians, are insisting that their entire portfolio be invested in companies that have robust environmental, social and governance standards. Some studies have shown that over 75% of those born after 1965 see it as increasingly important to consider ESG standards when investing and that responsible investing is the way of the future. Members can firmly count me as one of those people.

Canadian banks are starting to take note, but they too have a long way to go to meet this growing demand. Definitions of responsible investing by the big five banks still allow them to invest in areas that may run afoul of the topics that Bill C-231 brings forth.

Portfolios should not only put their money in companies with strong ESG standards because there is a growing demand from consumers. We know that companies with strong ESG standards tend to vastly outperform the market, and evidence demonstrates that a better ESG score translates to about 10% lower costs of capital. The reasons for this are obvious. These companies have cost efficiencies from use of inputs and other resources, better regulatory relationships and investment optimization, and less overall risk when robust ESG and anti-corruption compliance measures are in place.

As the world swiftly transforms to a lower-carbon and net-zero future, companies that currently actively manage their emissions can assure their investors that they will be prepared for regulatory risks down the road. In this regard, Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada, former governor of the Bank of England and current UN special envoy on climate action and finance, said, “...those who invest in [achieving net zero]...and who are part of the solution will be rewarded. Those who are...still part of the problem will be punished.”

Just as Canadians want their private money invested in companies that are not complicit in human labour or environmental crimes, they also expect that public money, especially their pensions, will follow similar guidelines. That brings us to the matter at hand today.

The Canada pension plan has steadily grown over time, and its returns have vastly outperformed the market average. The CPP Investment Board was created as an organization independent of the government in 1997 to monitor and invest funds held by the CPP. The board reports quarterly on its performance and annually to Parliament through our Minister of Finance, and board members are appointed by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the provinces and a nominating committee. Its model is recognized internationally for sound management and governance, and its independence is highlighted as one of the reasons for this. As of the end of last year, the assets under management of the CPP exceeded $475 billion.

While the CPP has provided strong growth of pensions over time, the changing nature of investor preference is not isolated to private banks. Canadians are also expecting that their investments are not unduly put at risk through exposure to companies that are not prepared for the energy transformations that are currently under way, or that could be debarred or otherwise ostracized for committing acts of bribery or human rights abuses.

In terms of monitoring investments, the CPPIB currently asks that companies report material ESG risks and opportunities relevant to their industry and business models. It has also indicated a preference for companies to align their reporting with the standards of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, or SASB, and the Financial Stability Board's Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, or TCFD.

Both SASB and TCFD have created standards for businesses to identify, manage and communicate financially material sustainability information to their investors. Generally, they divide climate risks into two major categories: risks related to the transition to a lower-carbon economy and risks related to the physical impacts of climate change. Where companies in its portfolio do not follow such a standard, the CPP has the ability to utilize its proxy voting rights to push for disclosure along these lines and to improve ESG performance more widely. While completely divesting a company holds appeal to many, oftentimes much more can be accomplished from driving change in practice and reporting as a shareholder, as unpopular as that can sometimes be.

The approach that CPP takes on climate involves bottom-up assessments for new investments from the perspective of climate change and a top-down approach to measure its entire portfolio risk over time. This is smart from both an environmental and economic perspective, and it has informed a couple of notable shifts.

The first is a steady departure from fossil fuel investments. Last May, former CEO Mark Machin noted that fossil fuel producers and services made up only 2.8% of the board's investments as of March 31, 2020. That is a reduction of 4.6% from two years earlier.

The second, as showcased in the CPP's latest report on sustainable investing, is that investments in global renewable energy companies more than doubled to $6.6 billion in the year to June 30, 2020. These are important changes because the numbers show that renewable energy investments are greatly outperforming those in the fossil fuel sector. Reports have shown that over the last five years, investments in fossil fuels have yielded an average of a 7.2% loss, while renewable energy investments have grown by 73%.

Of investments in the last year, the top 30 global clean energy companies have grown between three and four times in size. I know this very well because I have some of these leading clean-tech companies, Carbon Engineering for example, in my riding.

We need transparency in markets so investors can adequately assess risk of carbon exposure. The driving force behind the creation of Canada's expert panel on sustainable finance in 2018 was for it to make recommendations that could scale and align finance in Canada with our country's climate and economic goals.

Among the 15 recommendations outlined to attain our goals, the panel recommended we embed climate-related risk into the monitoring, regulation and supervision of Canada's financials systems. It further recommended that we promote sustainable investment as business as usual within Canada's asset management community.

This is also one of the reasons to support Bill C-12, Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which, among other things, would require the minister of finance to report annually on how it is managing its financial risks and opportunities related to climate change. This obligation would require the government to report on all of its operations, including Crown corporations such as Export Development Canada and the Business Development Bank of Canada.

I believe that this disclosure should extend to CPP. Canadians should have a full picture of the climate-related risks associated with their investments, both those made in Canada and those made internationally, as well as the areas where we can profit. CPP officials have been leading calls for such disclosure within that portfolio. The same can be said for ensuring that CPP does not support companies that are committing human rights abuses and risk undermining our proud commitment to upholding human rights in the world.

The current government has already introduced numerous policies and mechanisms to make sure that Canadian companies are not complicit in human rights abuses in Canada and abroad. Notably, to further strengthen Canada's commitment to responsible business conduct, we appointed a Canadian ombudsman of responsible enterprise in April 2019, whose duty it is to review claims of alleged human rights abuses rising from the operations of Canadian companies abroad in the mining, oil and gas, and garment sectors. Following credible reports of human rights violations affecting Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinxiang, China, Canada adopted several measures to address the risk of goods produced by forced labour from any country from entering Canada and to protect Canadian businesses from becoming annoyingly complicit in the abuse.

A further step I would like to see this Parliament take is to adopt Bill S-216, an act to enact the modern slavery act and to amend the Customs Tariff, which would impose an obligation on entities to report on the measures being taken to prevent and reduce the risk of forced labour or child labour being used at any step in the production of goods in Canada or those imported into Canada. Like Bill C-12, the standards contained in the proposed modern slavery act should apply to the CPP. These disclosures are not just about the moral imperative. Any smart investor seeks to understand the level of risk in its investments, and the CPP is no exception.

To the bill itself, I very much agree with its intents and purposes. Few Canadians would believe we should support businesses running afoul of the human labour or environmental abuses it mentions. I do, however, have serious concerns about the way it has been drafted. The language of this bill is dangerously vague and overly broad in stating that:

...no investment may be made or held in an entity if there are reasons to believe that the entity has performed acts or carried out work contrary to ethical business practices....

This could include just about any unsubstantiated report rather than actual, factual occurrences. To ascertain when there may be a reason to believe something had occurred could result in absolute paralysis of the CPP. As well, companies would be considered guilty until proven innocent.

It also does not define what would constitute a human labour or environmental rights violation that would bar investment. For example, I think we can all agree that we do not want to invest in—

Climate Emergency Action Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleagues, particularly from the New Democratic Party, whose wisdom and power today pierce my heart and give me hope.

It is my pleasure to speak on my private member's, Bill C-232, the climate emergency action act.

We have international commitments to fight the climate emergency and to uphold human rights. This includes the UN Convention on Climate Change, the Paris agreement and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Bill C-232 would uphold these international agreements and would recognize the right of all Canadians to a safe, clean, healthy environment as a human right.

More than 100 countries in the world have recognized the human right to a safe, clean, healthy environment in their legislation and/or constitution. Instead of building more pipelines and investing in companies around the world that violate indigenous rights and hurt Mother Earth, it is time for Canada to follow their lead.

I know many people in the House will shamefully vote against this legislation at a time when we are in the middle of a climate crisis, and we see violent attacks on our Mother Earth. Everything we value is at risk.

Exploitive resource extraction companies continue to contribute to the ongoing genocide and an epidemic of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, as noted in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

The exploitation of our Mother Earth continues to violate the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples and all peoples across these lands we now call Canada.

Indigenous communities and nations continue to be denied the right to traditional land-based practices, the use and management of their own territories, while other human rights to housing, clean drinking water and health go unmet.

Even the Canadian Paediatric Society is raising the issue of climate anxiety being experienced by young people, who are the front lines, fighting to save our earth.

The government introduced Bill C-12, but it is not nearly good enough. In fact, it is a slap in the face to science and will not allow us to meet climate targets.

Bill C-232 proposes a framework for developing a made-in-Canada plan to address the ever-more pressing climate emergency, while it offers a clear strategy for kick-starting our country's green economic transition and rapidly reducing our emissions, while also leveraging this moment as an opportunity to right the wrongs of our colonial past and address violence faced by BIPOC communities in our country.

Despite the opportunity that we have before us, I sense that most members here today will vote no to Bill C-232. Before they do that, I hope they will consider what is at stake: every single thing we know and value; our Mother Earth; our health and wellness, and even the existence of future generations; our air quality; our oceans and coasts; water and food security; more fires, hurricanes and droughts; the further displacement of indigenous peoples, BIPOC and coastal communities; and even an increase in future pandemics. To turn down this opportunity in the middle of a climate crisis and at a time when we need to plan for post-pandemic economic rebuilding is shameful.

I ask the members of the House to think about how history will remember us in relation to this legislation. The science is clear about the actions we must take right now to avoid the worst impacts of a runaway climate crisis. This must be done while respecting the human rights of indigenous peoples and all peoples of the world.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of Bill C-232. It is not lost on me that in the crisis of this global pandemic, perhaps the crisis of climate change has been lost. I have deep gratitude for my caucus colleague for Winnipeg Centre. She has recentred the conversation on catastrophic climate change and the impacts it is going to have, undoubtedly, on society in the years very soon to come.

The thought of guaranteeing Canadians a clean, safe, healthy environment as a human right seems so simple, yet time and again in the House we hear rhetoric from both sides, with consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments debating the merits of climate change. Time is running out. We know that. The youth across this country are telling us clearly that time is running out. Indigenous communities across this country are telling us clearly that time is running out, yet we hear from the Liberals a refusal to hear the calls from our youth.

I stand here today in the House of Commons a mere couple of feet away from what happened on October 28, 2019. A group of youth were arrested for occupying this space under the “Our Time” banner, recognizing that their futures were being gambled with by policies that were not meeting the size, scale and scope of this catastrophe.

We have heard about Bill C-12 here today. The Liberal government refuses to honour its commitments, legal frameworks and international agreements centred on consultation with indigenous communities. All levels of government are guilty of this. All parties have been guilty of this.

I am here today for those youth who were here, putting everything on the line for their futures. I am here today for the indigenous youth who led the protest at the B.C. legislature in support of the land defenders there. If we do not have a clear consultative framework that centres on our obligations to indigenous people across this country, then we know we are not meeting our obligations and our moral imperatives on the agreements that we profess to sign on to in the House. The idea of a right, for those living in Canada, to a safe, clean and healthy environment seems so simple, yet there has been only talk and no action. It is a dream deferred to a future date. We do not have the time.

The science at the interparliamentary committee on climate change has been clear. We have an opportunity right now, in this moment, to change course. If we do not do that, the cost will be far too great. If we do not intervene right now in these critical years, the impacts of catastrophic climate change will become irreversible. We have an obligation to future generations of the world. We have mortgaged their futures on a short-term extractory capitalist system that seeks to squeeze the lifeblood out of our natural resources and our earth.

I am deeply grateful to my hon. colleague for Winnipeg Centre for providing the House with the leadership and the framework to ensure that we have critical consultations in place, and that we meet our United Nations obligations on climate change. The government continues to commit to targets it has no real intention of keeping. It misses them again and again, and we are running out of time.

I am here today for the Water Walkers, and I think about the people who are leading the struggle locally in my city: Indigenous women who honour nibi, the water, and know that they, under the leadership of Grandma Josephine, walk the shorelines. I learned from their teaching that we should be granting our water, nature and air the same rights as we grant the corporations that have been polluting with impunity for far too long.

The idea that we can solve this by 2050 is too late. I have to share with the House the impacts, atrocities and environmental degradation of this planet. I feel that, when future generations look back at us in the House, they will know that we had a chance to do something different. They will read this bill and know that the opportunity was before us, yet it was not supported. It was not taken seriously, and the commitments were pushed down another 20 years.

By that time it will be too late, but the truth is becoming abundantly clear. The corporations that continue to degrade and pollute our world are going to be held to account. I will share with the House another thought. Maybe in the future, when they look at the size and scale of the impending wildfires and floods, and the ongoing diseases unleashed in pandemics, they might meet internationally and convene for real truth and reconciliation globally on climate change, like the Nuremberg trials.

These companies know the impacts and they know the science, yet they spend all of their time and their money to silence activists' voices and silence the science. It is clear that if we do not rise to this moment right now, we are in a significant, dire catastrophe. Climate change is threatening absolutely everything that we value.

We know that extreme weather is worsening, and that the resilience of our communities is constantly under threat. The future of our children and grandchildren depends on our actions here today. Globally we are being left behind, because other countries have a clear plan. They are sticking to their commitments. They know that we have to meet this plan by 2030. Bill C-12 does not do that.

I have sat in the House and listened to Liberals and Conservatives boast, brag and debate about how many pipelines they can build and buy, and how much they can continue to extract. I have been in the House when we have debated the failures of these successive governments to have meaningful, free, prior and informed consent in the legal fiction that is Canada. In unceded territories we have a legal obligation to deal with the rights holders of these lands, and indigenous rights in this country are inherently tied to land rights.

We have a strong, brilliant indigenous woman who has come to us with a private member's bill that lays out, as they have already identified, commitments they have already made. They talk about consultation, when the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre stresses that there can be no reconciliation absent of justice. To vote down this bill today would be a clear signal that the government is not committed to its obligations, because these are frameworks that are already clearly laid out.

Anything short of supporting this, and any conversation about kicking this obligation another 20 years down the line, will be remembered by the young people who were arrested here, the young people who were arrested on the steps of the legislature in B.C., and the young people who take to the streets for Fridays for Future. They are watching. The question is, when this is done, when this vote is over and when our time here in the House is finished, what are members of the House going to tell them? What are they going to have to say?

We will be supporting this bill. I will be able to look my son in his eyes and let him know that we did everything we could to stop this.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill this evening. I have been following the debate in the legislature today, and I can honestly say that it was a tremendous debate.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-232, an act respecting a Climate Emergency Action Framework, sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. This private member's bill demonstrates the importance of climate action for all Canadians and highlights the urgency of the situation. I thank its sponsor for putting it forward in the House today and supporting our government's initiatives to address climate change.

Canadians know that climate change threatens our health, and it certainly threatens our way of life and our planet. That is why we need climate action and we need it now. That is what our government will continue to do.

Last September, the Government of Canada made a commitment in the Speech from the Throne to bring forward a plan to exceed Canada's 2030 target and to legislate Canada's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. We all know that net-zero emissions by 2050 is an ambitious target, but we also know that it is a necessary target, which is the reason we are moving forward.

Scientists tells us that if we are to keep global warming under a 1.5°C temperature increase and avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we must reach net zero by 2050. They have not given us options; they have really given us firm and solid direction.

Establishing this target in legislation has signalled our government's commitment to taking leadership and real action on climate change and to meet Canada's obligations under the Paris Agreement as well. It was with that goal in mind that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change introduced Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. We are all familiar with that act and what is being proposed in Bill C-12.

We know that the act is a key component of the government's plan to achieve net-zero emissions in the economy by 2050. It would put in place a clear framework for reaching net zero by requiring the minister of the environment to set national targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Those national targets would be set at five-year intervals: for 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045. The act would also contain an emissions-reduction plan that would encompass important information such as a description of the key emissions-reduction measures the Government of Canada intends to take to achieve the target for a particular milestone year. In addition, it would explain how the target and the key measures and strategies in the plan would contribute to Canada's achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Therefore, we are excited to be moving forward with Bill C-12.

It would require progress reports. There would be investment reports to check on the progress that is being made and, of course, adjust course as needed along the way. The minister of environment and climate change would prepare at least one progress report relating to each of these milestones in consultation with other federal ministers. The report would also provide updates on the progress toward relevant targets and on the implementation of those federal measures, including any relevant sectoral strategies and federal government operational strategies described in the emissions-reduction plan.

The government must also provide an assessment report for each target, which is a very important piece of this as well. That report would contain a summary of Canada's official greenhouse gas emissions inventory for the relevant milestone year and a statement on whether the government had achieved its targets. As members can see, also included in that would be additional information about any adjustments that might have to be made.

The reason I am outlining all of this is that Bill C-12 provides for further accountability and transparency by requiring the minister to include information about why Canada did not meet the targets and what actions the Government of Canada is taking or will take to address those missed targets. It would also require that the report be prepared no later than 30 days after the government submits its official greenhouse gas inventory reports in accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and with the relevant milestone year, or to 2050. We recognize, as a government, how important transparency is and how essential it is to hold governments accountable, whether it is our government today or any government in future generations. All emissions reduction plans, progress reports and assessment reports would be made available to the public once they are tabled in Parliament.

To help ensure that Canadians have the best advice when it comes to the environment and climate change, we believe that Bill C-12 would establish those precedents for Canadians. Also, under Bill C-12, we will establish an independent advisory body. Indeed, back in February, just last month, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change announced the creation of this advisory body and nominated 14 Canadians to serve on that committee. They will provide the minister with advice on the most promising pathways to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, drawing on research and analysis and engagement. We expect that this advice will reflect the priorities and ideas that are being shared by all Canadians.

This evening we are dealing with private member's Bill C-232, an act respecting a climate emergency action framework. The bill aims to legislate government's commitments under the United Nation framework on climate change, which I just mentioned, particularly its 2030 GHG emissions reduction target, while also complying with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It would require the Minister of Environment to implement a climate emergency action framework in consultation with indigenous peoples and civil society, and to table in Parliament a report of the framework within one year and a report on its effectiveness within three years.

Very clearly, Bill C-232 echoes the priorities that our government has already established. That said, Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, would actually go even further than what is being proposed in the private member's bill before us, because it would provide a stronger framework for achieving Canada's climate change plan by fixing, in legislation, the government's ultimate goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. It would create a transparent engagement mechanism for setting those targets and developing the emissions reduction plan and assessing the progress made towards achieving these targets.

Bill C-12 would also create an independent advisory party that would provide advice on the most promising pathway to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, and it would give a reporting role to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainability, two components that the private member's bill we are debating this evening does not include.

Bill C-12 is new and an essential component of the government's overall approach to climate change. Recently, the Government of Canada released “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy” report, which is the federal plan to build a better future with a healthier economy and environment. This plan builds on the work that has been done to date and the efforts that are already under way. It will enable us to exceed our current 2030 emissions reduction target under the Paris Agreement.

While many of the themes presented in Bill C-232 echo the priorities our government has set out, we will not be supporting the bill, because we will be advancing Bill C-12, which, as I said, goes further. It encompasses an advisory committee, it would make the minister fully accountable and would establish broader regulations for transparency and the need for such transparency and disclosure to the public.

What I will say to the member is that I am encouraged to see her coming forward and supporting action on climate change and recognizing—

The Environment

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to take the adjournment proceedings this evening to review a question and to hopefully get a better answer than the one I received back on November 30, 2020.

At that time, of course, being in calendar year 2020, the question of extreme importance and urgency was whether the government was going to fulfill a commitment that the Government of Canada made during the negotiations at COP 15 in Paris. That commitment was to improve and enhance what is called an NDC in the Paris language, a nationally determined contribution, generally referred to as a target. We committed in Paris that in calendar year 2020 we would improve our target and do so again every five years thereafter.

When I asked the minister what the plans were to improve our target in 2020, I was disappointed that he did not answer directly, but the answer is now very clear. The time has passed. We are in 2021. We have not changed our target. We have not met the commitment we made.

In conversations with people around the minister's office, it was reported to me that the department did not think that commitment was legally binding and other countries have not done it either. I find both of those responses appalling. It is a commitment that we made. It can be found in paragraph 24 of the COP 21 decision document, in which every country with a 2030 deadline for their first NDC was to improve their target in 2020. As to the idea that other countries have not done it, 69 of them have. Of course, it is only the countries that have 2030 deadlines.

Here we are in 2021 with a target that is completely out of step with all of our G7 partners and most of the industrialized world. We have one of the weakest targets in the world and the weakest of an industrialized country, except perhaps Saudi Arabia. We now have an opportunity to improve our record. I want to shift gears here to the potential for getting things right.

We are desperately close to being completely out of time in terms of carbon budgeting to avoid going above 1.5° Celsius global average temperature increase. This is in fact the target that is in the Paris Agreement, which is a legally binding document. This increase must not be exceeded, but on almost every review of where we are on the science, it is almost impossible to hold to 1.5°. There is a window on holding to our target. It will have closed, and permanently, well before 2030.

We now have the opportunity to improve our target and do our fair share, which would be at least twice what we have now committed to do, and that opportunity is coming up now because President Biden has established a climate leaders summit to take place on Earth Day, April 22, obviously, I am sure, by Zoom.

That is when Canada is really going to have to step up and say that we are prepared to reduce our emissions by 60% below 2005 levels by 2030, and set in place a first milestone year under Bill C-12 of reductions that are firm by 2025, of at least 15%. That would be the beginning of a clear commitment to the kind of action we said we would undertake when we signed the Paris Agreement.

Climate Change Accountability Act

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-215, an act respecting Canada’s fulfillment of its greenhouse gas emissions reduction obligations. I would like to thank the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for raising an issue of urgency and importance: climate change.

Canadians know that climate change threatens our health, way of life and planet. They want climate action now and that is what the government will continue to deliver. Canadians continue to face the impacts of climate change during the COVID-19 pandemic. From forest fires and floods to ocean pollution and coastal erosion, Canadians are experiencing the impacts of climate change each and every day.

Canada's climate is warming at twice the rate of the global average. In the north, warming is happening at nearly three times the global rate. The effects of warming are already evident in many parts of Canada and are projected to intensify in the near future.

Bill C-215 aims to ensure that Canada will fulfill its obligations under the Paris Agreement to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. It would recommit Canada to achieving our current Paris Agreement target of at least 30% below our 2005 GHG levels by 2030 and enshrine in legislation Canada's commitment to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to net zero by 2050.

Our government has committed to two key climate change mitigation objectives: exceeding our 2030 target of 30% GHG emissions below 2005 levels, and legislating Canada's goal to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. While the government supports the intent of Bill C-215 and thanks the hon. member for bringing this important issue forward, it will not be supporting the bill, as it has introduced Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. Bill C-12 would codify the government's commitment for Canada to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

While Bill C-12 and Bill C-215 share similarities, they have important distinctions and differ in key respects. Both share a common purpose and objectives. They both require the establishment of a pathway for Canada to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and achieve its international commitments with respect to mitigating climate change.

Bill C-12 requires the federal government to set national emissions reduction targets at five-year intervals for 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045. Moreover, Bill C-12 goes further than Bill C-215 by requiring the government to develop emission reduction plans for each target area, as well as explaining how each plan will contribute to reaching our long-term goal of net zero in 2050. This process ensures that each plan will be tailored to its target and will be built upon previous plans when applicable. It would also ensure that other federal ministers who have duties and functions related to measures that may be taken to achieve a target will be consulted when establishing emission reduction plans.

While both bills require reporting to provide updates on Canada's progress in reducing emissions or achieving the GHG targets, Bill C-12 goes further than Bill C-215. It enshrines in legislation reports that must be prepared to provide an update on the progress that has been made toward achieving the GHG emissions target and, furthermore, on the implementation of the federal measures, sectoral strategies and federal government operation strategies described in the emissions reduction plan.

Bill C-12 would also require that the minister prepare an assessment report in relation to a milestone year or to 2050 that states whether the target has been met or not and an assessment of how the federal measures contributed to Canada's efforts to achieve the target. If Canada fails to achieve the targets, the minister would have to explain why and describe actions the government will take to address the shortfall.

Bill C-12 goes further than Bill C-215 by establishing an advisory body whose mandate is to provide the Minister of Environment and Climate Change with advice on achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and to conduct engagement activities related to achieving net-zero emissions.

This advisory body will be composed of up to 15 experts who will draw on research and analysis to identify actions that Canada can take to set the foundation for 2050. It will engage with stakeholders, indigenous peoples, other experts and the public.

In terms of accountability, both Bill C-12 and Bill C-215 include a role for the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to examine and report on the Government of Canada's implementation of the measures aimed at achieving the greenhouse gas emissions targets. Bill C-12 includes robust transparency mechanisms, including requirements that all targets, emission reduction plans, progress reports and assessment reports be tabled in Parliament.

Finally, Bill C-12 would also require our government to lead by example by having the Minister of Finance report on key measures that the federal public administration has taken to manage its financial risks and opportunities related to climate change. The government intends to use the report to enhance transparency about its own operations with respect to climate-related financial risks and opportunities.

Net zero is not just a plan for our climate; net zero is a plan for our economic competitiveness in the global marketplace. In December 2020, the Government of Canada released “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy”, which is the federal plan to build a better future with a healthier economy and environment.

This is a plan that builds on the work done to date and efforts that are already under way under the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change and continues down that path that Canadians, governments and businesses have been setting. It is a key pillar in the government's commitment to create over one million jobs, restoring employment to pre-pandemic levels, of which climate action and clean growth is the cornerstone. This strengthened climate plan will also enable Canada to exceed its current 2030 emissions reduction target under the Paris agreement.

While many of the themes presented in Bill C-215 echo our government's priorities set out in the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, we will not be supporting Bill C-215. While we will be advancing Bill C-12, I am encouraged to see all parties in this place recognize the need for strong climate action. Combatting climate change should not be a partisan issue and our government will work across party lines and with all Canadians to achieve our climate goals.

Once again, I thank the member for bringing forward such an important issue. I look forward to further discussions on Canada achieving net-zero GHG emissions by 2050.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-215 introduced by my hon. colleague the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia is to make the government accountable for its climate action.

This bill calls on the government to bring in realistic and adequate measures and to implement oversight mechanisms. Through this bill the Bloc Québécois is hoping to make the government accountable to the House of Commons and the public on its environmental measures.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing that a commissioner of the environment assess the action plans to attest that they meet their objectives, or that he or she recommends to the federal government changes that will help meet the set targets. It is not rocket science.

We want the minister to take the commissioner's recommendations into account and implement them. I believe that Bill C-215 on climate change accountability is a tool for success, not an obstacle to action.

Quebec sets the bar for North America because it is one of the world's very few environmental leaders. Quebec's per capita CO2 emissions are lower than in the rest of Canada thanks to its massive investments in hydroelectricity over the past 80-plus years. Quebec understood the need for long-range climate action over 30 years ago. The rest of Canada did not. That is why the Bloc Québécois believes that meeting targets should not hinge on what the federal government decides to do. Measures need to be formalized, and the law must hold the government accountable to the people. It is time to walk the talk.

Reducing the impact of human activity on the environment is crucial for the future. A green recovery would stimulate our economy and increase our GDP while reducing environmental impact. We owe it to future generations.

By green recovery, I mean supporting renewable energy sources, such as forestry and hydroelectricity. I mean investing in research and development and in our CEGEPs and universities so they can create and adapt green technologies that our SMEs can use to their advantage.

We in the Bloc Québécois believe it is essential to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets and stop funding tax incentive programs that support fossil fuels. We must encourage innovation and the quest for new economic avenues.

The necessary means must be deployed to achieve that. We need to look further ahead and encourage innovation and the energy transition. This economic recovery, which we will all contribute to, offers a great opportunity to take a hard look in the mirror and promote measures that will also have a positive impact on future generations.

The Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique says that the government bill is extremely vague and not particularly binding, proving that the Government of Canada has not done its job since 2015.

To help the Canadian government come up with some solutions, I have a few to suggest. First, Canada must invest in freight transportation infrastructure and supply chains to make the movement of goods as efficient, sustainable and environmentally friendly as possible.

To that end, Canada must help businesses modernize digital platforms and data sharing. Canada must also fund research on heavy-duty vehicles with a view to making them greener, possibly even electric. Why not start immediately by providing incentives for the purchase of electric buses and ambulances, for example?

Quebec and Canada do not have a shortage of forestry resources. Canada must invest in this sector and Quebec's and Canada's regions must take advantage of forestry innovations to develop and supply the most environmentally friendly products possible and produce forestry waste with low carbon emissions. Let us develop markets for innovative forestry products.

Furthermore, why does Canada not focus on research and development for forestry biomass supply chains and the production of bioenergy? It should do so.

Why does Canada not also promote Quebec's aluminum, which is the greenest in the world?

We should fund the shift from producing simple aluminum to producing carbon-free aluminum. To continue its efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, Canada must invest in research and development and research centres in the regions and at colleges and universities in order to promote the acquisition and adaptation of green technologies that will benefit businesses as well as the land, wildlife and plant life, and above all, everyone's health.

Canada must make smart investments in transportation electrification by facilitating the purchase of zero-emission or hybrid vehicles and the replacement of older vehicles, while guaranteeing their availability on the market. The federal government needs to install charging stations at federal buildings, particularly in the regions, and establish carbon footprint as a criterion for procurement and the awarding of contracts in federal government procurement policies.

The Bloc Québécois supports enforcing the “polluter pay” principle, which rewards those who care about the environment, by instituting green equalization, which is a carbon tax for provinces that produce more greenhouse gas emissions than the national average. That money would be given to provinces that produce less pollution than the national average. That is an idea that is very popular among my colleagues in the House, at least those who are here. I am being sarcastic, of course.

At the same time, Canada should stop directly investing in western Canada's fossil fuel industry through subsidies and tax breaks. Obviously, we also need to support our friends in Alberta in their green transition. I am sure that Albertans will know better than the federal government how to expedite their transition to a greener economy.

The purpose of Bill C-215 is to make the federal government accountable for its climate action. The bill calls on the government to bring in realistic and adequate measures and to implement oversight mechanisms. We need to reassess how we operate and how we interact with the land and the economy. If we want to do things right, I think we need accountability mechanisms. I think Bill C-215, introduced by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, is an excellent bill.

I also want to mention some parts of this bill, which talks about adapting and mitigating effects, in addition to limiting greenhouse gas emissions as part of the fight against climate change. These are all things that I feel are missing from Bill C-12.

Key words are important to me. The bill establishes greenhouse gas reduction targets, mechanisms to review those targets and mechanisms to monitor that reduction. It requires the government to table, within nine months of its passage, an action plan for greenhouse gas reduction that includes detailed measures. It also provides for monitoring of the action plan by a competent and independent authority, an environment commissioner, who will be able to keep an eye the government's actions. The commissioner must analyze the action plan within six months of its tabling and report back to Parliament. The goal is to be accountable to the House and the public on the progress of the action plan.

If the environment commissioner determines that this is insufficient, the government will have to take his or her recommendations into account and rectify the situation. The legislation includes mechanisms for reviewing targets and evaluating how well the government is adjusting its actions. This is enshrined in legislation to ensure that Canadian climate action is consistent with Canada's climate objectives. In other words, the Bloc Québécois's climate accountability bill has been drafted in such a way that it can be supported by all MPs of all stripes. We are therefore reaching out to Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, Greens and independents.

If the government is serious about its stated intention to meet its own targets, nothing should stop it from voting for a bill that would enshrine those very same targets in law. The economic recovery must not compromise our climate future. It is interesting to note that climate change affects human health, security, the food supply, climate migration, human rights, the economy, jobs, national security, defence and transportation infrastructure.

When we talk about growing a green economy that is good for people, that is what we mean. Those are the conditions and the principles for a green recovery.

In closing, what this means is that we must move to ensure sustainable climate action. Meeting our targets can no longer hinge on what the government decides to do. It must be guaranteed by law. Emissions reduction targets and the mechanisms to adjust them must be enshrined in law. That, to me, is key. The purpose of the law is to make the Government of Canada keep its own greenhouse gas emissions reduction promises.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, for putting forward her first private member's bill, Bill C-215.

The climate emergency is the greatest existential threat of our time, and we are running out of time. Executive director Inger Andersen of the UN Environment Programme stated, “The science is clear that if we keep exploiting wildlife and destroying our ecosystems, then we can expect to see a steady stream of these diseases jumping from animals to humans in the years ahead.” There is a direct correlation between the climate emergency and the current pandemic in which we find ourselves. She went on to say, “To prevent future outbreaks, we must become much more deliberate about protecting our natural environment.”

It is clear that climate accountability and climate action are essential to preventing future pandemics. It is clear that without acting on this emergency, we will increasingly experience food and water insecurity, income crises, conflict and, even further, global conflict. The infinite cost of climate change will continue to rise unless we act now.

The climate emergency poses a serious threat to our environment, economy, health and safety. At the forefront of this issue are indigenous peoples. The government has even acknowledged that. In fact, a preamble paragraph in Bill C-15 states:

Whereas the implementation of the Declaration can contribute to supporting sustainable development and responding to growing concerns relating to climate change and its impacts on Indigenous peoples

This is in reference to the full adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The impacts of this crisis are already being felt in Canada, particularly in the Arctic and along our beautiful coasts. It is disproportionately impacting indigenous nations, rural communities and marginalized and racialized communities. This is what we call environmental racism. Indigenous and northern communities, farmers, food producers and others have been sounding alarms about the impact of climate change on ecosystems, but this has fallen on the deaf ears of consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments, which have failed in their duty to protect our beautiful mother earth.

We know that the climate emergency is now impacting our food security, and indigenous people across our lands are among the most impacted. It is disrupting traditional ways of life and food security, especially in remote northern communities, where the climate is warming at a much faster rate, which is impacting traditional food sources.

Not only that, when we take away people's sustenance, we force them to find other ways to acquire food. We force remote communities to rely on expensive imported food alternatives, leaving individuals to afford only the unhealthy food options. This has a negative impact on health, so it is not surprising that there is a correlation between physical wellness and the impacts of the climate emergency.

In addition, it goes beyond just climate to include the kind of violence and the increased rates of violence against indigenous women and girls that come as a result of resource extraction projects that bring workers into our communities. They are perpetrating violence against indigenous women and girls, a crisis that was confirmed in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. We need to act now to respond to the calls for justice.

Indigenous people have experienced the greatest impacts of the climate emergency, so it is not surprising that many indigenous peoples from across this country, even as we speak in the House today, are on the front lines to fight against the climate emergency.

Reconciliation and fundamental indigenous rights, the rights that are articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, go hand in hand with environmental justice. With all due respect to my colleague, the fact that she did not even mention the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in her bill is shocking.

Not only that, but I think we see the impacts of climate change on emotional health, particularly the emotional health of young people who are fighting to keep our world healthy. People are tired of governments committing to targets and then missing them again and again. We are running out of time to turn things around.

With Bill C-12, we will not be on track to meet our international climate obligations. We need an action plan that honours our international climate commitments and obligations. We need a plan that addresses the urgency of the climate emergency.

Although the current government proposed Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, it is not consistent with agreements we have made with the international community. For example, there is no target for 2025 and there are no real accountability measures for the next 10 years, even though we know the next decade will be the most critical.

The accountability mechanisms, including the advisory committee, are weak and rely on the environment commissioner, whose office is already underfunded. We will not achieve climate justice without accountability, so it was surprising to me that although there are many good parts in the bill, the accountability measures put far too much power in the hands of ministers, who have a history of destroying our environment and not taking environmental stewardship seriously.

The NDP has a long history of pushing for greater accountability of government for its actions to fight climate change. I put forward, for example, Bill C-232, which provided a clear accountability framework and called on the federal government to take all measures necessary to address the climate emergency. For the first time, a piece of legislation pushed forward a clean, safe and healthy environment as a human right that would be enshrined in law with the federal environmental bill of rights.

We have other examples, such as Linda Duncan, Jack Layton and Megan Leslie.

We need to work together to push forward a bold climate agenda. We are running out of time.

[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, it is always a pleasure to address the chamber on the important issue of our environment.

When I looked at Bill C-215, the first thing that came across my mind was that in November of last year, the government introduced Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. If we were to look at these two pieces of legislation side by side, we would easily understand why we should be supporting Bill C-12. I look forward to debating Bill C-12 to hear the ongoing discussions, because it covers so much more than Bill C-215.

Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, would hold the federal government to its commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and exceed our 2030 Paris target. That is the essence of what Bill C-215 does. Having said that, there are some significant differences between the bills. There are certain things that Bill C-215 does not have.

Before I comment on some of those differences, I want to emphasize that we must take advantage of the economic opportunity that climate action presents in order to provide the world with the cleanest and most cutting-edge innovation. I think, for example, of hydroelectricity in my home province of Manitoba. When we talk about the development of clean energy and being innovative, there is so much potential in my home province. Equally, I suspect that if we were to go to all regions of our beautiful country, we would find opportunities. That is why it is critically important that we take to heart the idea of net-zero emissions and the goal of 2050 and take actions today that will really make a difference going forward.

I made reference to some key differences between Bill C-215 and Bill C-12, and I will now give a couple of specific examples.

In Bill C-12, the government's bill, there is a requirement for consultations with the provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, experts and Canadians as a whole. This is absent in Bill C-215.

Bill C-215 would only require the publication of a single action plan. Contrast this with Bill C-12, the government's legislation. It would require the publication of an emissions reduction plan for every milestone year. That is a significant difference. Bill C-12 would also require the government to set each target at least five years before the beginning of the related milestone. Bill C-215 would require the government to set all of its targets up front.

Those are the types of differences that I believe clearly demonstrate that we should be looking at ways to get Bill C-12 through the House of Commons and encourage some form of consultation about it at committee, and encourage the Senate to recognize the true value of the bill. I suggest that my friend from the Bloc, who introduced Bill C-215, review the bill to see if maybe there are aspects of the legislation that could in fact be incorporated at the committee stage.

Bill C-12 requires the Minister of Finance to publish an annual report describing how departments and Crown corporations are considering the financial risks and opportunities of climate change in their decision-making, whereas Bill C-215 does not include any such provision. That is why I would encourage members of the Conservative Party who are supporting Bill C-215 to seriously look at ways in which we could see Bill C-12 pass. I have already had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-12, and members can look at some of the content that I put on the record at that time.

One of the things that I want to put in perspective is the issue of other initiatives. In the throne speech introduced in September, we not only talked about green policy but we committed hundreds of millions of dollars to ensuring that we were on the right track. I look forward to when a budget is presented to Canadians, and to the many initiatives and specifics that will give Canadians reason to be optimistic that we finally have a government that is taking the environment seriously.

As a government, we have recognized from the beginning that, to have a healthy economy, we also need to strive for a healthy environment, and that we can develop policies that complement both the environment and the economy. We have recognized the value of major projects going through the department of environment or through independent provincial or national commissions, and that it is important to do research and consultations because those will give projects a better chance of success.

I want to very quickly say that I am excited about the pledge to plant two billion trees. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we, as a government, are committed to planting two billion trees. That will be a great filter for our water. It will ensure that the air we breathe is healthier.

These are the types of initiatives that people can understand and relate to, and they are going to make a difference and get Canadians that much more excited about working to improve our environment.

I appreciate the opportunity to share a few words on this legislation.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

[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, as I listened to the member talk about the environment, this came to mind. If she were to read the throne speech, she would find many substantial financial measures. That was back in September.

In November, we introduced Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, which would hold the federal government to its commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and exceed our 2030 Paris target. Net-zero is not just a plan for a healthier environment; it is a plan to build a cleaner more competitive economy.

I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts on those two statements. She tries to give the false impression that the government is not doing anything, but the reality seems quite different.

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

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity.

I will start by acknowledging that I am speaking from the traditional territory of the W̱SÁNEĆ first nation, the indigenous people of the territory that I am honoured to represent in Parliament.

Today, we are addressing Bill C-14, which, of course, includes the legislative changes that are required as part of the fall economic statement that was tabled November 30. Although our commentary today should be limited to the legislative changes before us, and I know that some of the speeches have been quite wide-ranging, I want to reflect briefly on the fall economic statement itself, then turn to the legislation before us, and then to the things that are missing from it and that we wish were there.

The fall economic statement, at over 200 pages, is definitely wide-ranging. It references a lot of hard work, and I want to acknowledge the hard work of our Minister of Finance, indeed, the government as a whole, with a good dose of gratitude.

There is no perfection to be found in the actions of any government around the world in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some do better than others, and some do worse than others. I think we do better as Canadians when we try to work together.

That is the intent of Greens, whether we are elected federally or in the provinces across this country. We prefer collaborative efforts, co-operation and working through consensus. However, in looking at this document, it is extraordinary in detailing ambition around a wide range of issues.

First, on the question of a safe restart, there was about $20 billion put into a safe restart. We know that this was transferring money to the provinces for things as important as personal protective equipment, PPE, and getting the vaccines rolled out, which is a subject we debated until midnight last night with a lot of emotion and different opinions, but we have vaccines. We wish that they were being rolled out more quickly, but it does take federal-provincial co-operation. It also takes dealing with global multinational pharmaceutical companies. We are also looking at day care, so for the safe restart and a number of other aspects, there was $20 billion.

There are priorities in the fall economic statement that are not COVID-related but are high-priority items for Greens, particularly working towards indigenous reconciliation and moving towards pharmacare. I do not know why it is taking so long, but pharmacare is flagged in the fall economic statement.

Specifically, we should start looking at pharmacare in relation to rare diseases. I am part of a caucus, quite an informal caucus, with members of Parliament from every single party in this place, and that is a great place for collaboration. We are working with the CF Foundation and trying to get the life-saving drug Trikafta to patients in the CF community. We work together, and I think we are better when we do so.

On the opioid crisis, again, referenced in the fall economic statement, Greens favour decriminalization. We need to move fast to stop the deaths from opioid addiction, which is an extension of a mental health issue. It is a health issue. It is not a criminal issue.

On climate, which is also referenced in the fall economic statement, Greens are very keen on improving our east-west electricity grid and also improving its potential to reach north. We applaud the focus on interties that we have begun to see out of the Canadian Infrastructure Bank. However, we need more. We need more work on the electricity grid. We need more work on public transit, but it is flagged, as is the importance of electric vehicles.

Many climate-related measures are in the fall economic statement, including nature-based climate solutions. On the commitment to planting two billion trees, which we have heard of many times and look forward to seeing, it is critical that they are trees appropriate to the ecosystems in which they are planted. It is critical that we do the tree planting in ways that enhance carbon sequestration and protect biodiversity, such as along stream banks to help protect our wild Pacific salmon where they have lost so much habitat.

These are measures we support, but they are not enough. We have seen Bill C-12, and they are referenced in the fall economic statement for climate accountability, but without major strengthening, such as a fixed dark target date of 2025 for carbon reductions, it will not be worth supporting.

When we look south of the border we see the steps the new Biden administration is taking, pursuing some of the courses Barack Obama left in place. This is also encouraging. Canada has scope, as is mentioned in the fall economic statement. With carbon and border adjustments, we can move our economies in the same direction and create more jobs while doing so. These are encouraging things.

We support Bill C-14 as far as it goes. The measures are important in order to get more COVID assistance to people to get more relief.

What is missing? There are many sectors that are not just falling through the cracks, but plummeting through a chasm. They need more help. I refer specifically to all the businesses in the tourism sector, particularly restaurants, but also bus services.

The fall economic statement refers to the highly affected sectors having more credit availability, but it is capped at $1 million per piece of assistance. I will specifically mention Wilson's bus lines, which provides not only charter service but also regularly scheduled service into first nation communities. It is an integral part of our tourism ecosystem here. It is being pressured out of existence by the commercial banks. The banks are demanding repayment. The $1-million capped loan will not be enough to save Wilson's.

For other parts of our transportation infrastructure, such as regional airports, $1 million in loans is not going to help them. We need to focus on what is needed to save all of our transportation infrastructure that is at risk right now. I think the best way to do that would be for the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister to talk to all the CEOs of the big commercial banks and remind them they are making profits every quarter.

This is the most recent news. If we just scan the headlines of BNN Bloomberg, we see the new quarter, post-2020 into 2021, news. It is a kickoff for big bank earnings. They are doing great. They have adjusted fourth-quarter profits above the average analyst estimates. When the banks are doing well, maybe not as well as before the pandemic, but they are not struggling or about to go under, they need to help.

Similarly, we should not be leaning on Canadians who got the CERB in good faith because they thought they made $5,000 in the previous year. The qualifications to say they did not qualify came out later. Come on. Let us fix it in this bill to say that anyone who received CERB who received $5,000 gross income in 2019 is entitled. That would clear up a misunderstanding and remove the cloud over the heads of over 440,000 Canadians who received, and I think this is an Orwellian turn of phrase, an education letter.

The critical issue of long-term care homes is referenced quite a lot in the fall economic statement. It mentions long-term care home workers. One of the more disturbing stories I saw in the last few months was of an outbreak of COVID in an Ottawa shelter for the homeless. It turned out the homeless who were living there were actually workers in long-term care. They were earning so little as long-term care workers, they were living in the Ottawa homeless shelter because they could not afford a roof over their head.

We need to do much more. We need to get into those long-term care homes and make sure our seniors are vaccinated. We need to stop the senicide. We need to make sure we pay our workers adequately, whether they are front-line workers in long-term care or anywhere in our society. We really do need a guaranteed livable income to ensure equity and decency for every single Canadian.

This is just a quick scratching of the surface of what we see as a challenge to us as Canadians. The fall economic statement gives us a good direction, but it needs to be more ambitious. We need to ensure that as we come out of COVID we repair our social safety net so it is not a net full of holes, but an actual place of stability, decency and respect for every single one of our human beings in this society, whether homeless, indigenous, or a woman who cannot figure out how to go back to work. We need to rebuild. We need a society that lives up to our greatest aspirations, including acting on the climate emergency while we still have time.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, although my hon. colleague speaks about nobody being left behind, in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, we currently have cases of trench fever, a disease of extreme poverty, occurring in the middle of a pandemic. I would also like to remind him of other people who have been left behind, such as students, disabled persons and seniors in long-term care homes.

Let us not forget the government's current climate bill, Bill C-12, which will not allow us to meet our climate targets. In the midst of all of this, the vaccine rollout is not happening. We know the impacts of the climate emergency are exacerbating the pandemic.

I would like my colleague to let Canadians know what his government plans to do, outside of political sound bites, to make sure that people are really not left behind.

Keystone XL Pipeline

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that there was a business case for this pipeline, but Canada's energy regulator, which is not among the environmental activists about whom the member was talking, has said that if we are serious about climate change, if we take climate action and if we are serious about net zero by 2050, there is no need for this pipeline.

Earlier today in his statement, the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington, who recently got kicked out of the Conservative Party, said that net-zero legislation was not viable and urged Conservatives to vote against any net-zero legislation.

Does the member agree that net-zero legislation is unnecessary and against Alberta? Will the member be voting against Bill C-12?

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, the Keystone XL cancellation is a stunning blow to all Canadians. This affects far more than Alberta and Saskatchewan. There is hardly a small town in Ontario that does not have a business that manufactures for the energy industry.

While this cancellation is lamentable, this is precisely the goal of the Paris Agreement and the Liberals' net-zero bill, Bill C-12. The fact that this cancellation occurred on the same day the U.S. rejoined the Paris Agreement is telling.

Shutting down projects like Keystone will not decrease global oil demand, but it will ensure that Canada gets a lower price for its oil and receives less tax revenue and that more Canadians remain out of work. It will ensure that we import more oil from Saudi Arabia and others that have awful environmental and human rights track records.

I know why the Liberals and others will be supporting this bill, but I am very surprised the Conservatives and Erin O’Toole will be supporting it.

I am voting against Bill C-12, and I hope some of my former Conservative colleagues will have the courage to stand against this assault on our energy industry.

God bless Canada and all our natural resources.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

It is important for me to inform the House and the thousands of Canadians who are waiting to find out what we will be debating this week. Without further delay and so as not to make them wait, I will tell my colleague right away.

This afternoon and tomorrow we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-10, the Broadcasting Act.

In the event that we finish debating Bill C-10, we will then give priority to the following two bills: Bill C-12 on net-zero emissions and Bill C-13 on sports betting.

Mr. Speaker, I will take the opportunity afforded to me by my colleague's question to thank you and your colleagues in the chair.

I also want to thank my colleague, the House leader of the official opposition, and our Bloc Québécois and NDP counterparts and their teams.

I want to thank the table officers, who do extraordinary work, all of the teams, and the pages who are patient enough to work with us every day and kind enough to always smile while doing so. I also want to thank the whips and their teams.

Finally, I want to thank all members for this very different session. It has not always been easy but, together, we were able to do a lot for the good of all Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Measures to Support Canadian Businesses

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge honour to participate in today's debate. First, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton Mountain.

Today's debate is a very important debate, because we are obviously talking about issues related to the economy, around the pandemic and small business. It could not be more appropriate timing, as many small businesses are on the cusp of going out of business given that they have closed their doors to protect public health. In fact, small businesses truly are the unsung heroes in this pandemic, and we need to do everything we can to support them in this crisis.

There are many things in today's motion that we agree with. The Conservatives put forward a motion today with a couple of poison pills. I do not believe they actually want this motion to pass today, which is really disappointing. We have been waiting for the Conservatives, the official opposition to come forward with new ideas that could help support small business in the middle of a pandemic. One would expect that the Conservatives would come forward with ways to help support small business in a way that would make a meaningful difference. Instead, they are coming forward with old items that were on their agenda prior to the pandemic.

Sadly, I would say that the Conservatives are using the pandemic to leverage their political platform to attack workers' pensions, to slow down action when it comes to tackling climate change and doing our part, and it is extremely disappointing. They cite that 46% of Canadian businesses are concerned they are not going to survive. I do not doubt that.

The Liberals have rolled out program after program that have design flaws, and have left many people out, including the commercial rent assistance program. The NDP brought forward the concept of a commercial rent assistance program, and the last thing we thought was that it would be a landlord-driven program. We are glad to see the government finally fix that, but are disappointed that it will not backdate it to April 1. We do not understand why the Conservatives have sat idle, and have not joined us in calling on the government to backdate that program for the many businesses that were left out.

The Conservatives are talking about businesses that are concerned and are wondering how they are going to survive. We want them to join the New Democrats in calling on the government for what I think is really an injustice, by leaving out all of those tenants who were left out to dry. I am disappointed that that is not in this motion, calling on those who are benefiting and profiting from the pandemic the most, including the big banks and the biggest corporations, to pay their fair share. They are getting a free ride.

The Conservatives have put forward a motion calling for the postponing of the increase of the Canada pension plan and payroll taxes. It is like we are in one crisis and we are putting off a future crisis for seniors. We know that many of them were in crisis heading into this pandemic, without adequate supports and adequate safety and security in place, or retirement savings to get them through even the best of times.

We are seeing housing prices skyrocket in the middle of this pandemic. For a decade, we saw the Conservatives refuse to increase contributions to the CPP, which is really leaving seniors vulnerable today. Now they want to leave young people who are going to be the victims, carrying the debt load and the consequences of the pandemic and what it is going to do to the Canadian economy in the long run, to not have to contribute now, when we know that they deserve to have a retirement in the future, where they can retire with dignity.

Again, Conservatives are back on their track record of continuing to attack workers and seniors. We saw, under their regime, that they attempted to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67, and they refused to invest appropriately in the OAS. So the Conservative track record when it comes to pensions is pretty clear. What we do not want to do is use one pandemic as an excuse to have another crisis in the future, when it comes to seniors and retirement income.

The Conservatives are even calling it taxes. This is not taxes. This is about critical investments in people's retirement security. It is disappointing to hear the Conservatives say that they now support labour and workers, and they are changing direction. However, the Conservatives are now using words like “taxes” when it comes to increasing supports for income security for people in their retirement.

The other part that I am deeply concerned about is the carbon tax. I have to give credit to the B.C. Liberals for continuing to move forward with the carbon tax in B.C., despite the economic crisis we were in 2008, with the understanding that if we did not do our part when it came to taking climate action, we would inevitably be in another crisis down the road that would cost us much more, whether it be in forest fires or flooding. We see the impact that it is having on our warming oceans and our salmon.

Right now is the time to ensure we follow through with climate action. Right now we are still lagging behind jurisdictions such as British Columbia on a federal landscape. We see the new administration from the U.S., in its mandate, committing to taking on the issue of climate change. It is not backing down.

We are seeing leadership. Maybe the Conservatives need to look at other leadership around the world or other Conservative governments, such as in Britain, Japan or Germany. We are seeing right-leaning governments understand that it is good economics to invest in climate action and clean energy, and that it is a huge economic cost to leave to future generations. They talk about the Liberals and their deficits, but really they keep neglecting the huge economic deficit they are looking at passing on to future generations.

I have huge concerns about the motion. I am disappointed that the Conservatives threw in the poison pill. We would have liked to have support it. Part of this motion is about ensuring there is more credit availability, which is very important in my riding, especially to the tourism sector. Resorts in my riding have had an incredibly difficult time. Many of them did not get access to the BCAP program. It was very challenging to do that.

I worry that when looking at the LEEFF program, the Conservatives are really trying to erode the important mechanisms that are in place, so we do not see CEOs and shareholders benefiting from government financing and supports during the pandemic, as we saw in 2008 under the Conservative government when it was in charge of the oversight of the economic downturn from the recession then.

These are some of the things that we have identified about which we are deeply concerned. We will continue to work with all parties to ensure there are improvements and supports for small businesses. We want to see the Liberal government follow through with its commitment when it comes to accessible, affordable and universal child care, so everybody has a chance to have early childhood education and be able to go back to the workforce.

I am disappointed to see that the Conservatives are not supporting these important investments. In Quebec, 70,000 women went back to work and the GDP grow 2% as a result of an investment in early childhood education. We have seen how important the CERB has been to support those workers and business owners who have been left out, such as musicians or artists whose businesses are gone. We would have loved to have seen the Conservatives bring forward a motion to invest in training, retraining or guaranteed liveable income to ensure that nobody would fall through the cracks in the future.

We understand that small businesses are under distress, that they need access to financing. We fought really hard to support the Indigenous Tourism Association of Canada and get important economic supports and loans early on in the pandemic. We would like to see the government roll out a recovery plan to support those most vulnerable businesses, whether it be in the tourism sector or the whole economy. We have not seen the government come forward with a true recovery plan.

Therefore, we join the Conservatives in wanting to see what the plan is when it comes to rapid testing and a vaccination rollout, but also the economic recovery plan, which is critical.

Again, back to the importance of supporting small business, we need to be working together in a collective spirit and we need to be careful. I do not think it is the time for partisan approaches to putting a tax on really important supports for people. This is the time for us to recognize how inadequate the supports are for people and how sad our commitment to climate change is. We saw that in Bill C-12, which the government just tabled. There is a lack of priority by government when it comes to tackling climate change.

The New Democrats support some things in the motion, but we are deeply disappointed that the Conservatives had to throw a bunch of poison pills in it and really push what is a crisis now to future generations. We hope our colleagues will—

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question.

Pollution is an important issue for sure.

Bill C-12 is a step in the right direction for nature and the environment, but our generation is going to pay the price for pollution.

We need to be forward-thinking here. We need to hit the Paris targets, and I think focusing on 2030 is a much better approach, even from an economic point of view. Hitting those targets is a big part of it, rather than offloading things to the next generation by focusing on 2050.

I am deeply concerned about our environmental economy. We pay for pollution with our health care and other things, so we need to get serious about tackling economic and environmental issues head-on.

Climate Emergency Action Act

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today in support of the member for Winnipeg Centre and her bill, Bill C-232, which would guarantee all Canadians the right to a clean, safe, healthy environment and would provide for a climate emergency action framework, a tool for accountability for those most impacted by climate change.

This is a critical framework for all transformative climate action policies, including a green new deal, and it would ensure we uphold our responsibilities toward future generations. The bill explicitly outlines the critical importance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to Canada's climate response, and would require the government to consult meaningfully with indigenous peoples and communities and civil society.

The NDP has a long history of calling for accountability on the climate crisis, leading the way with Jack Layton's climate change accountability act in 2006. Jack's bill passed in the House, but was killed by the unelected Senate.

We have also been long calling for the full implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and for upholding the right to free, prior and informed consent for indigenous peoples. In particular, I want to recognize the work of former MP Romeo Saganash in bringing forward legislation on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the House of Commons, as well as the work of my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre. It is because of their work and the work of indigenous and grassroots organizers from coast to coast to coast that we saw an important step forward this week with the tabling of a government bill on the declaration.

New Democrats have also long called for the right to a healthy environment to be enshrined in law, and the bill continues and builds on that critical work to uphold human rights.

The climate emergency poses a serious threat to our environment, to our economy and to our health and safety, and Canadians are tired of governments committing to targets and then missing them again and again. We are running out of time. We are not on track to meet our international climate obligations. We need an action plan that honours our international climate commitments and obligations. We need an action plan that addresses the urgency of the climate crisis, and we need to ground that plan and that action in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Liberals have acknowledged the climate emergency, but their current plan in no way will achieve our international commitments. The Prime Minister claims to be a climate leader, but he keeps handing out billions of dollars to fossil fuel companies. He declared a climate emergency and then, the very next day, approved and bought a pipeline.

The government recently introduced Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero accountability act. The Liberals' bill is a step in the right direction, but it would not adequately ensure that we are doing everything we can to address the climate crisis. They promised five-year milestone targets but then left out 2025, so there is no real accountability measure for the next 10 years even though we know the next decade is the most critical. The accountability mechanisms in the Liberals' bill, including the advisory committee, are weak and they rely on the environment commissioner, whose office is already underfunded.

It is important that any legislation on accountability is paired with significant investments in a just and sustainable recovery plan that will support workers, families and communities with training and good jobs, creating a more affordable life while tackling the climate crisis.

There is no climate accountability without climate action. Despite some nice words about a green recovery, the Prime Minister has just rehashed his inadequate climate plan from last year's campaign, while many countries like Germany and France are releasing bold plans to kick-start a sustainable economy and a sustainable recovery. Even President-elect Joe Biden announced a $2-trillion economic stimulus plan, heavily focused on climate-related investments.

Far from being a climate leader, Canada is being left behind. We need a just transition to a low-carbon economy that brings workers along. We need to stop handing out billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies and, instead, invest in a sustainable economy that will create good, family-sustaining jobs across the country.

There are a ton of gaps in the government's bill, Bill C-12. One critical gap is that it mentions the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but the bill is not actually grounded in a framework of upholding these rights and also in upholding the right to a healthy environment.

The impacts of the climate crisis are already being felt in Canada, particularly in the Arctic and along the coast, and are disproportionately impacting indigenous nations, rural communities, marginalized and racialized communities. We know that extreme weather events are continuing to worsen and are creating conditions where the occurrence of intense wildfires, flooding, droughts and heat waves are increasing both in frequency and in intensity. Indigenous and northern communities, farmers and food producers and others have been sounding the alarm about the impacts of climate change on our ecosystems.

The climate emergency is threatening our food security. It is threatening indigenous peoples across Canada, and they often are the most impacted.

Indigenous peoples are among the most impacted by the climate emergency, including disrupting traditional ways of life and food security, especially in the north, which we know is warming at a much faster rate. This has driven up the cost for imported food alternatives, leaving individuals with only being able to afford unhealthy food options, which contributes to greater food security and negative impacts on health, which can have a vicious cycle effect. The climate emergency has significantly impacted the traditional territories of indigenous peoples and, in turn, has impacted their livelihoods.

The national inquiry has also noted an increased rate of violence against indigenous women and girls by workers who are being housed in extractive industry work camps. The severity of this crisis was confirmed in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls with a need to act within the calls for justice.

Risks to indigenous nations increase with the severity of the global climate emergency and indigenous people have experienced the impacts of the climate crisis for generations and are most often the ones on the front lines, fighting for the protection of lands and resources. Indigenous science and knowledge provides a complex understanding about how to address the climate crisis and it is critical for developing a climate emergency action framework.

Canada's nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples must be respected under the framework, among others, of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Liberals say that they support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but they have failed to engage meaningfully in consultation with indigenous peoples and accommodate the concerns raised across Canada, including failing to obtain free, prior and informed consent.

Reconciliation and environmental justice must go hand in hand or, as my colleague said in her speech, there is no reconciliation without justice. There is now a widespread consensus that human rights norms apply to environmental issues, including the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. The lack of a legal right to a healthy environment has a direct impact on indigenous and racialized communities in Canada and people from coast to coast to coast. More than 150 countries in the world have recognized that particular human right and it is time for Canada to step up to follow their lead.

The NDP is calling on the government to live up to our international obligations, including the United Nations convention on climate change, the Paris agreement and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to recognize the right to a healthy environment as a human right.

The New Democrats want to move forward with a green new deal that supports the human rights of all people, while investing in a just and sustainable recovery that brings workers along. Bill C-232 would provide a clear path forward by calling on the Government of Canada to take all measures necessary to address the climate emergency. For the first time, the right to a clean, healthy and safe environment would be enshrined in law. The government would be accountable for implementing a climate action emergency framework that would respect human rights and this framework would save lives, mitigate the impacts of the climate emergency on public health and the natural environment.

This would be an important and transformative step to uphold fundamental human rights and protect a healthy environment for future generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have always really enjoyed Private Members' Business. To hear the ideas and passions of members is always an important part of how one member of Parliament can make a huge difference to his or her riding and to our country. Ideas can draw attention to an issue not yet contemplated by the government or present an innovative approach to a vaccine public policy problem. While they can be extremely divisive or sometimes bring people together, they are certainly good for our democracy and our way of life.

Indeed, when the members of the third party voted with the minority government to shut down this place earlier this year, my first thought was this: Why would they deprive their members of the critically needed time for Private Members' Business? That said, I am not a member of the fourth party and I trust they were happy with that decision.

Moving to Bill C-232, I must confess to feeling a bit like I am in the movie Groundhog Day, although I will say that with so many Manitoba MPs speaking today, I guess we could call it “Winnipeg Day”. I say that because what Bill C-232 proposes is very similar to what the Liberal government's Bill C-12 proposes. I do realize there are some key differences, though, as I did in the debate on Bill C-12 when I referenced the history of where Canada is at.

We know that, in 1993, former Liberal minister Jean Chrétien promised to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 1988 levels by 2005.

We know that Liberal promise was broken. We also know that, in 1997, Prime Minister Chrétien signed the Kyoto protocol, this time promising to reduce our emissions to just 6% below 1990 levels.

We know that, in 2006, when the Liberals were elected, Canada was 30% above those levels, and we know that Prime Minister Harper had to withdraw Canada from the Kyoto protocol because we would not achieve those binding objectives.

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not point out that, at the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, Prime Minister Harper followed the United States' lead, signing a non-binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.

After the 2015 election, the Prime Minister sent the largest Canadian delegation ever to the Paris climate change conference at a cost of over $1 million. Canada was back, he said.

We know while in Paris, despite often criticizing the former Harper government, ultimately the Liberal government adopted those same targets it said would be a minimum. Of course, we all know today the Liberal government has massively failed to reach that so-called minimum. In fact, some reports suggest the Liberal government may be off the target by 123 million tonnes.

Obviously that is why we are here today debating this bill and why last week it was Bill C-12. Bill C-12 was quite fascinating from a political perspective. It literally kicks the can so far down the road that it will be up to future governments, and ultimately the government of the day in 2050, to deal with it. How do we get there? There is no road map, no solutions and no costs or penalties for failure. There is more of the same, more promises to do better down the road. They promise.

However, that is enough about Bill C-12.

Bill C-232 proposes that, at a minimum, Canada meet the 2030 targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions set under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Much like Bill C-12, this bill does not say anything at all about how this will actually be done. The underlying promise of every federal government to date has been a return to the targets set by Mr. Chrétien in 1993. It is easy to make promises about targets, but not as easy to meet them.

To be frank, I do not think that we will need both Bill C-232 and Bill C-12 going forward. One of them will be enough. To end the suspense, I will be clear and say that I already support Bill C-12. I will not support Bill C-232 as it now stands, and I will explain why.

It is not realistic to have two different regimes as we would have if this bill were passed in addition to Bill C-12. In my view, we need to ensure that industry and innovation are part of the solution.

One of the things that the Liberals' recent fiscal update proposed, and that I agree with, is funding for the home energy efficiency retrofit program. While Liberals have largely been silent on other climate-related measures, we do know that the Minister of Natural Resources has spoken about the future of hydrogen fuel cells. He has also referenced the potential for small modular nuclear reactors. This is important because we have to recognize that more electric vehicles in our future means we will need more low-emission power.

As I have mentioned previously, I can get excited as the critic for this portfolio when we can use innovation, instead of taxation, to lower our emissions. Why do I say that? It is because taxation, also known as a carbon tax or what Liberals prefer to say, a price on pollution, does not help a senior on a fixed income living in a 70-year-old home in winter temperatures that can drop well below -20°C. No senior should be forced to choose between monthly heating bills or groceries.

We also must be mindful that many rural communities simply do not have any public transit. B.C. has lost Greyhound as a private carrier. We cannot forget about these Canadians, and they should not disproportionately be faced to share a higher burden of the costs.

Before I conclude, I will give you another reason why I prefer the deadline set out in Bill C-12 over the one set out in Bill C-232. We cannot do this alone. Canada is just a small part of a global problem. We need to try to work with our biggest trade partner, the United States, in the hopes of achieving some parity when it comes to the policies and regulations that will help us to collectively reduce our emissions.

I say that because emissions are a global problem and yet climate change has had a devastating impact on many areas of my riding. Forest fires and flooding have caused hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage. Changing weather patterns have hit local agriculture very hard.

I am sure that other members of the House could share their own experiences in that regard.

Like Bill C-232, Bill C-12 is far from perfect, but we need to start somewhere and we need a realistic timeline.

I believe that Bill C-12 better reflects that over Bill C-232. As a result, I will be supporting Bill C-12 at second reading, but will not be supporting Bill C-232. I would like to again thank the member for putting forward an issue of debate close to her heart and to those in her riding, and I would also thank all members for taking the time to hear another point of view on this legislation today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-232, an act respecting a climate emergency action framework. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the bill's sponsor, the member for Winnipeg Centre, and thank her for her advocacy on many important policy matters, including UNDRIP. I hope she will pass on my thanks and good wishes to her partner, Romeo Saganash, who of course played an instrumental role in UNDRIP in the last Parliament.

Her bill today speaks to an issue of urgency and importance that the government and Canadians also support: climate change. Canadians know climate change threatens our health, our way of life and our planet. They want climate action now and that is what the government will continue to deliver.

Bill C-232, an act respecting a climate emergency action framework, aims to legislate the government's commitments under the United Nations Framework on Climate Change, particularly its 2030 GHG emissions reduction target, while also complying with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It requires the Minister of the Environment to implement a climate emergency action framework in consultation with indigenous peoples and civil society, to table in Parliament a report on the framework within one year and a report on its effectiveness three years later.

Another private member's bill that we heard about a few moments ago, Bill C-215, an act respecting Canada’s fulfillment of its greenhouse gas emissions reduction obligations, aims to ensure that Canada fulfills its obligations under the Paris Agreement to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. The fact that these two private members' bills both relate to climate change and have been brought forward at this time by different MPs demonstrates the importance of this issue for all Canadians.

Canadians continue to face the impacts of climate change during the COVID-19 pandemic. From forest fires and floods to ocean pollution and coastal erosion, Canadians are experiencing the impacts of climate change each and every day. Canada's climate is warming twice as fast as the average in 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.

It is important to note that climate change is a global issue. The science is clear. We cannot wait for the future to stop polluting, or to take steps to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Climate change action must start now.

According to the 2018 special report “Global Warming of 1.5 °C”, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, human activities have already caused approximately 1 °C of average global warming since the pre-industrial period. This special report also finds that global emissions must reach carbon neutrality around 2050 to limit warming to 1.5 °C. This was an objective that was identified in the Paris Agreement.

There are clear benefits to limiting global temperature increases to 1.5 °C, rather than 2 °C or higher. The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of these findings, and agrees that more action is needed globally and here in Canada. Addressing the climate change issue requires effective policies that will measurably reduce Canada's GHG emissions over the decades to come, while promoting clean growth.

We are ready. We are ready to take the necessary and decisive action to advance Canada's fight against climate change. This September we made a commitment in the Speech from the Throne to bring forward a plan to exceed Canada's 2030 target and legislate Canada's goal of net zero emissions by 2050. We are committed to reaching net zero in a manner that creates a globally competitive economy. Reaching net zero is a long-term project, and importantly a short-term project as well. It is also a tremendous opportunity for a more prosperous and resilient future. Achieving net zero will require a careful calibration to reflect Canada's unique circumstances including demographics, geography, the importance of our traditional resource economy and shared jurisdiction on the environment.

As economies reset, now is the time to set into motion some of these measures. We can take into account the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the context of economic regrowth and the transition to a sustainable low-carbon economy. Yes, we can build back better.

We will seek the advice of experts and Canadians as we chart our path to net-zero emissions in a way that supports sustainable growth, is sensitive to economic needs across the country and makes life more affordable for Canadians. Net zero is not just a plan for our climate. Net zero is a plan for our economic competitiveness in the global marketplace.

Transforming our economy for the future is not something one government can or should do alone. It will take time. To get this right, we have a lot of work to do with industry leaders, civil society, indigenous communities and all Canadians.

In the coming year, the government will seek the advice of experts and will consult with Canadians to identify pathways to net zero that integrate its environmental, energy and economic objectives. We will seek input from Canadians on how Canada should innovate and transform our economy to ensure a just transition to a low-carbon economy.

That is why the Minister of Environment and Climate Change introduced, on November 19 in the House of Commons, Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050, which is also known as the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act.

This legislation would put in place a clear framework for reaching net zero. It would require the setting of national targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions at five-year intervals, and it would ensure transparency and accountability through requirements for emission reduction plans, progress reports and assessment reports with respect to each target. Plans would contain important information, such as a description of the key emissions reduction measures the Government of Canada intends to take to achieve the target for a particular milestone year.

Clearly, many of the themes presented in both Bill C-215 and Bill C-232 echo our government priorities. I want to thank hon. members who I have seen in the House for their contributions. Bill C-12 aims to provide a stronger framework for achieving Canada's climate change plan, as it is not only a plan for our climate, but also a plan for our economic competitiveness in the global marketplace.

If we want to be competitive in the net-zero emissions economy of tomorrow, we must stay ahead of the pack. It is good news to see that the House is united in finding a legislative framework to get us there. Once again, I thank the member for bringing forward such an important topic. I look forward to further discussions on Canada achieving its climate targets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for opening up the debate here today. She is very passionate. I have sat at committee with her and have benefited from our discussions. I congratulate her on focusing on items that are very important to her and her constituents.

There are many pieces of legislation, such as Bill C-215, her own piece of legislation we are debating today, as well as Bill C-12, that all relate to climate accountability in some way, shape or form. How would the member say her legislation is superior to that of the Liberals, or that of the Bloc Québécois, which is Bill C-215?

The Environment

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

Madam Speaker, in Adjournment Proceedings this evening, I am pursuing a question for which I did not receive an adequate answer on November 20.

I asked about the new legislation before us, Bill C-12, which proclaims itself as a net-zero climate accountability act. It fails on almost every point. The Green caucus is struggling with how to handle it. We want so very much to support climate accountability, but we struggle with whether we can even vote for this legislation at second reading to send it to committee.

Here is what the legislation must do as the bottom line requirement to be called accountability on net zero for climate action: We have to get the science right, we have to get the process right and we have to get the accountability right. Right now, it has three strikes and this legislation is out.

Getting the science right means that in the preamble, one does not cite one aspect of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change science, that to hold to 1.5°C we must have net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, all the while ignoring the closer-term reality of the emergency and the urgency. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also says that to have any hope of holding to 1.5°C, we need massive reductions in greenhouse gases in the next decade.

It is not an even pace of having three decades so we take our time and do it in even bits every 10 years. No, we cannot do that. Most of the heavy lifting has to be done before 2030. That is not clear in the legislation. As a matter of fact, it is denied by the way the legislation is structured with a first milestone year in 2030.

Next is getting the process right. I am honestly baffled that the Liberal government appears to have ignored the experience garnered in other countries with climate accountability legislation. The U.K. has had its legislation since 2008. There are lessons to be learned there. Similarly, New Zealand, which brought in its legislation, learned from the U.K.'s experience, as did Denmark. All of the climate accountability legislation in countries where it is working has relied on expert advice. To the extent they have an advisory group, they are experts.

This legislation wants to have an advisory body that seems to be another version of a multistakeholder group without expertise. That is a very significant error. I like multistakeholder groups. I used to be vice-chair of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which was destroyed and repealed. It was originally put in place by the Mulroney government, by the way, and it was repealed under Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012. We should bring a national round table or something like that back, but not through the back door of Bill C-12, where we need expertise, not multistakeholder advice.

The third area of accountability that fails is having the mechanisms to hold the government to account and getting them right. This bill does not use mandatory language around the minister meeting a target. It is interesting. I have been conferring with colleagues in New Zealand and they are looking at saying, if the target is missed, that means the government will have to make up what it missed by buying credits and paying for them. Their finance department is getting ready to book the costs of missing the target. Therefore, there is a financial penalty and the government will then be keeping its eye on the ball to avoid that penalty.

The bottom line here is that the Paris Agreement now has the support of the United States, President-elect Joe Biden has appointed a high-level special envoy in John Kerry. Canada should be jumping up right now to be bold and ambitious.

This bill is not what we need. I hope we can see changes before it comes back at third stage and report stage.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, if the Conservatives stop filibustering and allow a stand-up vote on Bill C-7, then next week the government expects to call the following bills: Bill C-8 on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action number 94; Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act; Bill C-12, the net-zero legislation; and Bill C-13 on single-event sport betting.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you because December 5, two days from now, marks one year since the House elected you and placed its trust in you. You oversee House proceedings fairly, impartially and with dignity. Thank you on behalf of all members.

The Environment

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

Madam Speaker, Canadians are already seeing the effects of climate change. We know they want us to take ambitious climate action. That is why the government introduced the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, which will include a target to ensure that Canada achieves net-zero emissions by 2050, making us one of the first 10 countries in the world to achieve that goal.

However, before achieving net-zero emissions in the long run, we have to reduce Canada's emissions in the short and medium terms. Under the Paris Agreement, Canada is aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. We pledged to exceed that objective, and we will soon be announcing stronger measures to ensure we do.

There are several elements of the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act that would help ensure that the work to reach the 2030 targets starts early and leads to reductions in the short term.

The act would require the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to table and make public an emissions reduction plan that sets out key measures and strategies to achieve the 2030 target within six months of royal assent. The minister would also be required to provide an update on progress toward achieving the 2030 target at least once by the end of 2027, and the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development would be required, at least once every five years after royal assent, to examine and report on implementation of the measures meant to achieve the target.

It should be expected that the impact of the measures will increase over time. To get the actions right, we need to consult with stakeholders, provinces, territories and indigenous groups. While the new measures we are coming forward with will start to drive down emissions before 2030, we expect reductions will ramp up over time.

A good example of this is Canada's existing regulations for light-duty vehicles, which introduces increasingly stringent performance standards for each new model year. Another example is the government's commitment to plant two billion trees. Once planted, trees absorb an increasing amount of carbon over time, although the amount is small in the initial years. The new or enhanced measures would ensure that we can exceed our 2030 target and drive even deeper reductions toward 2050.

Looking to the long term, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act includes an array of accountability and transparency mechanisms, as well as provisions for public participation and expert advice, all of which will apply at regular intervals over the coming 30 years and help to keep successive governments on track. This includes requirements to seek the input of provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, experts and Canadians when setting each emissions reduction target and the plans to meet the targets.

Progress reports and final assessment reports will inform Canadians about the implementation of each plan and the emissions reductions each has achieved. If a target is not met, the government will have to explain why and indicate what it will do to remedy that failure. These mechanisms will ensure a transparent, accountable and successful approach to achieving our long-term goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Madam Speaker, my constituents know that if we implement ambitious measures to fight climate change, we must also position our economy to meet the demands of the future. From the manufacturing sector to natural resources, Canada is well positioned to be a leader in the economy of tomorrow.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change explain how the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act will make it possible not only to guarantee—

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, that question was really well put, probably the best question today.

This afternoon, we will continue debate at second reading of Bill C-12 on net-zero emissions. This evening, the committee of the whole will study the votes under Department of Health. Tomorrow and Monday, we will be debating Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying.

We hope to complete third reading of Bill C-7 on Monday to give the Senate enough time to pass the bill before the court-imposed deadline of December 18.

On Monday afternoon, at 4 p.m., the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will deliver the fall economic statement in the House of Commons.

Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days.

On Wednesday, we will resume debate on Bill C-12, the net-zero legislation.

Lastly, next Friday we will resume debate on Bill C-10, concerning the Broadcasting Act, and Bill C-11, concerning personal information protection.

The Environment

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege to ask a question in the House a few weeks ago about the trucking industry and how it relates to environmental policy.

One thing that we can all agree on is that most Canadians are at the point where they believe that some plan is needed and that some actions need to be taken to help our environment and to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we have. There may be disagreement on exactly what to do, but people would more or less agree that something needs to be done.

It was interesting to see Bill C-12 introduced by the government, a bill that had no plan and no targets. It was missing a lot of things, including consequences. If there were targets that were missed, there were no consequences for that in the bill. I found it ironic that the government has been unable to achieve the targets that Prime Minister Harper set years ago for 2030. The government is not on track to hit those targets either.

The trucking industry is significant in our country. Transportation accounts for about a quarter of the greenhouse gases produced in Canada, and of that quarter, the trucking industry produces a significant amount. Therefore, the trucking industry is a key player when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases in Canada. Roughly 90% of our goods travel by truck at some point in their lifespan. Ten million trucks cross the border every year between Canada and the United States, so there is a significant number of trucks on the road and they produce a significant amount of greenhouse gases.

As I spoke to members of the trucking industry, they were very much interested in playing a role in looking forward and developing future technologies and future plans to reduce the amount of carbon from trucking in the environment. Decarbonization of the trucking industry is what they would say. They would like to be a part of it. They would like to be at the table discussing plans for this. They know that, for their industry to succeed in the future, they are going to have to make changes and they want to be a part of those discussions. What they are asking for is to have a task force of engine manufacturers, the government, environmental groups, trucking industry players and drivers, all the players together around the table, coming up with a plan and a strategy for how to decarbonize the trucking industry going forward.

A few weeks ago, at the environment committee, I asked Marc D'Iorio, director general of energy and transportation at the Department of the Environment, if there were any plans to have a task force such as this. He said, “I'm not aware of direct work to create a working group. However, there are a number of measures being considered”, and he went on basically to say that they are going to come up with a plan and then they will tell others what it is.

I asked him to clarify. I said, “Are you saying that there have been no discussions to create a working group to get industry players in line with this, no efforts to get all of the people at the table to help develop these types of regulation?”

He said, “Not that I'm aware of.”

I asked the same question of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and his answer was that “obviously there is a need for consultation”, but that there was no plan for that.

When we come up with something as important as a plan for reducing carbon in the trucking industry, it is important that all the players have a role to play, that all the players' input is gathered and considered, and that a good plan is developed, because we have to make sure, not only that we reduce greenhouse gases but that the plan is workable. It has to allow industry to survive and produce its service at a price that is going to work and that customers will be able to pay. If government goes in and just creates regulations and dumps it on the industry, that is going to be a problem.

Therefore, I would hope that the government would see this and see the logic of getting all the players at the table up front to develop a plan together, so that everybody has a say in it and a good plan can be developed. Then we will have no need to rework the legislation later.

My question for the government is the same question: Is the government planning to have a task force made up of all these industry players as it develops regulations for the trucking industry?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, of course the Prime Minister will, and so will everyone on this side of the House.

I will ask, respectfully, the leader of the NDP, whether the NDP will commit to supporting the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. This is landmark legislation. It sets Canada on the path to net-zero emissions by 2050. I am so proud of Canada for this legislation and I hope all members of the House will support it.