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.

[Prof. Corinne Le Quéré]

It is pretty clear that, by maintaining the current structure, Canada is not likely to achieve its 2030 objective. It already does not have a good reputation in terms of climate, so I don't think things will improve if it does nothing or does too little.

Bill C-12 is a good step, but it is not strong enough to overcome the challenges. This opportunity to strengthen the structure should be seized or at the very least considered seriously.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the witnesses, thank you for being here.

Before I get to my questions, I want to address a comment that was made by Ms. Saks. She said she's certainly not a Conservative.

I welcome you to consider it at any point in time, Ms. Saks. We're a friendly bunch over here. Don't write it off so early into your parliamentary career.

To the witnesses, help me out here a little bit. I've been listening along and trying to see the worthiness of expanding this role.

Mr. Fauteux, I heard you say, well, New Zealand's done it. There's the ability to hire staff, evaluate efficiency, give advice on bills and amendments, and make more specific recommendations.

Following up on some of Ms. Collins's comments, looking into the future, I guess, how would an expanded environment commissioner role, under under Bill C-12, make a difference in terms of the role that exists today?

[Paul Fauteux]

I might point again to the example of New Zealand, which I think has a lot of interesting lessons for Canada. Madam Pauzé referred to Bill C-12, which would be Canada's first climate law. New Zealand has had such a law in place for a number of years. It was initially recommended by their commissioner for the environment. I think that's an excellent example of proactive policy advice. This was not policy-making, obviously. This was from the point of view of an independent officer of Parliament, with his own dedicated budget, with his own ability to set his agenda and hire expert staff and make expert recommendations. Certainly, New Zealand parliamentarians seemed to think this was very valuable input to their debates in the adoption of that law.

More recently, the commissioner for the environment in New Zealand has recommended amendments to the law. It's been in place for a number of years, and therefore there has been some experience gained. He has evaluated the experience gained in the first few years of implementation and made recommendations accordingly. I think the parliamentary debate is all the richer for it.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I have another minute left? So I will continue.

I am coming back to Ms. Le Quéré.

In your document, you insist on climate action governance, which is necessary for Canada and which must inevitably be strengthened. We know that a legislative measure on the climate will be studied—Bill C-12.

Could you talk to us about the importance of having an independent commissioner of the environment? How will Canada benefit from reviewing the commissioner's role and powers through a bill such as the one on climate?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I haven't been a member of another minority parliament, but what I have been told by others who have been members of minority parliaments is that things can occur, especially when we get to a point where there is a lot of disagreement, where legislation is essentially no longer able to move through the House and you have a log jam basically. No work is getting done. Canadians have sent us here to do work, to pass important legislation, for committees to work.

Oftentimes we hear this ideal notion that minority parliaments are wonderful because there is so much co-operation and consensus building. I'm hoping that we can build some consensus at this committee today and work together to make sure that the House has time to do the important work that is needed for Canadians. If we don't go down that path of working together and we have that log jam, it is possible we could end up having an election. It's possible that we could end up getting to a place where no one is willing to work together. I would hate to see that happen, but I would really hate to see that happen before Bill C-19 passes.

Without having election legislation passed, and without it getting past second reading, getting to its committee so that the committee can do important work on that legislation and bring forward amendments and then send it back to the House to go through the third reading stage, we won't be able to give the elections commissioner the important powers that are needed to make sure that an election would be run in the safest way possible for Canadians.

I feel it is our responsibility to make sure that we are doing the right thing for Canadians at the end of the day. That is very important.

We have in the House as well Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. I think that's a very important piece of legislation as well, and I'm hoping that the NDP and the Green Party are going to be very supportive of that legislation, and who knows, maybe the Conservatives will be as well. You just never know.

I'm eager to see all of that work get done in the House so I can see for myself what ends up happening, but right now what's happening is nothing, absolutely nothing. That is why I come back to why it's important for us to revisit this motion and to understand the repercussions it would have in the House if we were to pass it as is. I think that would be a complete failure of this committee to do its work.

That was some of the language I wanted changed in the original motion. I don't think that the government's work in procuring vaccines for Canadians can be described as it is. I sincerely believe—and I know Canadians do too, and I know at the very least that my colleagues will back me on this—that we are currently seeing vaccines come into our country, and we're going to continue to see vaccines flow into Canada even more quickly than what might be doable by the provinces to roll them out, but I'm very optimistic. I think Canadians are too. I'm starting to hear a lot of relief on that end from my constituents. I know they are very concerned. Their number one concern is getting vaccines to our seniors, to immunocompromised people, to those who work at the front line.

When we come back to Covax, in terms of the amount of vaccine that Canada would be receiving through Covax, I believe it would be somewhere in the area of 1.9 million doses by the end of June. The majority of doses that we are currently receiving are through Moderna. We are receiving doses through AstraZeneca. We're receiving Pfizer doses, of course. Pfizer is the largest number that we're receiving.

I know there might be some delays in the Covax shipments to developed countries, but I was happy to hear that—

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.

[Liz Lappin]

Sure. There are a number of areas, of course, where the government might be looking to purchase equipment that uses lithium-ion batteries or similar technology that would go into an EV. The things that immediately come to mind are electrifying fleets, and so on and so forth, and even materials for defence.

I recognize that there are certain activities that are federal versus provincial, but within the context of our net-zero aspirations moving forward in Bill C-12, it might be interesting to tie those ambitions to helping the lithium-ion battery supply chain in Canada evolve and having government procurement incent that.

Does that make sense?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I was just going to say we should get it onto our docket so that the steering committee can deal with it. We do have a call for a witness list by the end of March. We'll see what the next weeks bring us. We will also have supplementary estimates (C) coming up. Bill C-12 will possibly be coming to us. I think we have a traffic jam in front of us, as I put it in previous meetings, and we have to figure our way through that, but we should at least get it tabled so that we know it's a motion that the committee has accepted, and then we can figure out the scheduling from there.

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 pays 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 WSÁNEC 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 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 kick off of 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.