Bill C-215 (Historical)

Climate Change Accountability Act

An Act respecting Canada’s fulfillment of its greenhouse gas emissions reduction obligations

This enactment enacts the Climate Change Accountability Act, which provides for the development of an action plan to ensure that Canada fulfills its obligations under the Paris Agreement, including by means of targets for reducing Canadian greenhouse gas emissions and accountability mechanisms for emissions reduction.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her work on this bill.

However, I have to say that, in Bill C‑215, the Bloc Québécois was fine with a target that was 30% below Canada's 2005 greenhouse gas emissions. Our government voted against that inadequate target and went well beyond what the Bloc suggested. During the climate summit hosted by the U.S., we announced a new reduction target that would bring us to between 40% and 45% below 2005 levels. That is good news for members of the House of Commons and for all Canadians.

Motions in amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for that very good question.

We spent months working hard to bring about climate legislation for Canada. When I introduced Bill C‑215, it was about time someone did it. During the 2019 election campaign, the government told everyone and their dog it was going to do it, but it still had not introduced anything.

The Bloc Québécois went ahead and proposed something, but the government came back with its own proposal, which was not very good. In committee, we tried and failed to make the legislation more binding. The NDP decided to make it look like it was helping and make the government seem like it was open to proposals from the opposition parties and to collaboration, so everyone would be better off. However, the government did not consult the other parties about this.

We hope we get a climate law, because it is better than nothing. I hate saying it is better than nothing, but we have worked too hard to end up with nothing, so the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is probably the last time I will speak in the House under your chairmanship. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your excellent work. I must say that you are one of the only Conservative members who voted for my bill, Bill C‑215. You are a true gentleman. I consider myself fortunate to have served with you, even if only for a short time. I wish you a very happy retirement.

Quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where to begin with this bill. I would say that at the beginning of the study of this bill in committee, I felt like a little kid on Christmas Eve. It was the first detailed study I had seen in committee. I thought that finally here was a climate bill and that, although I was a little disappointed that mine did not make it to committee, at least we had something to work with, something to improve.

I would say that I became disillusioned rather quickly. It seems to me that as parliamentarians, as politicians, our job each and every day is also to show our constituents that they should not be cynical about politics, that we are here for the right reasons and not just for strategy, that we really want to change things. Unfortunately, I saw anything but that at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

First, I have to say that the committee was forced to rush its study of the bill. As my colleagues have already mentioned, we had only a few hours to debate this bill in the House. It was then referred to committee and we had to study it quickly.

Today, we are voting on closure. On the second to last day of the parliamentary session, when we are finally debating Bill C-12, we are being told that, as a progressive party, we should vote for this bill. We really want to do the right thing, but we also would have liked the government to accept the Bloc Québécois's helpful suggestions to truly improve this bill.

As a result, we find ourselves with a version of Bill C-12 that, a bit like its original version, does not guarantee that Canada will meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets, as it committed to do on the international stage.

If the Liberals were serious about their commitment, they should not have been trying to pass a climate law just to say that they passed a climate law. The Bloc Québécois seems to be the only party that stayed true to its convictions. I do have to acknowledge that the Conservatives also stayed true to their convictions, as we saw in committee. They proposed a number of amendments and engaged in meaningful debate. I will give them that. Other parties disappointed us in these debates.

The objective was of course to create a strong legal framework that would enshrine targets in the act, establish the climate policy and require the adoption of a plan. It is all well and good to set targets and be ambitious, but without a plan, nothing will happen.

This suggests that the act creates some provisions and mechanisms that will guide the implementation, the assessment, the tools and the approach that will be used to really reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The Bloc Québécois included such mechanisms in our proposals, in Bill C‑215 and in the amendments we presented in committee.

The Liberal members voted against our climate accountability bill. They introduced their own bill that was specifically designed not to interfere with their current plan, which, as I mentioned earlier, is to continue oil and gas production in the coming years. That means we are heading straight for a wall.

I heard the minister say a little earlier that he had Bill C‑215 in his hands when Bill C‑12 was drafted. I would like to hope that the Liberals drew inspiration from Bill C‑215, but their bill is really not the same.

In fact, that says something about the Liberals' partisan tactics, which are shameful. We have said many times in the House that the climate emergency should not be a partisan issue. However, unfortunately, that is what the Liberals turned this bill into when they realized that they really had to introduce a climate bill because environmental groups all over the country were telling them that it was time to hold that debate if they wanted to pass a climate law by the end of the parliamentary session. That is when the Liberals woke up. It was not because of the climate emergency, but because they were running out of time before the end of the session. That is why we are here tonight, speed-debating this bill.

Not surprisingly, as I said, the Liberals reduced it to a partisan game, but who got caught in their speed trap? It was their farm team, the NDP. That, I have to admit, I was not expecting. Shame on me for believing for one second that the New Democrats had the same environmental values we do. Obviously, we are getting used to the NDP saying one thing and doing the opposite. That is what happened at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and I should have seen it coming. That was my mistake.

The government clearly used the NDP by promising them something. It refused the Bloc Québécois's help by systematically voting against all the amendments we proposed. We heard the Minister of Environment and Climate Change say a little earlier that they had voted in favour of at least one Bloc Québécois amendment, but that is false. It was the Conservatives and, for once, the NDP that helped us get that amendment passed, but the Liberals managed to oppose everything we proposed.

With the NDP, the government acted as if it were a majority. The NDP accepted the government's offer to make only cosmetic changes to Bill C-12, thereby squandering the balance of power the opposition would have had to really improve this bill. The NDP gave up the chance to strengthen Bill C‑12, and that is truly deplorable. It is as though all the NDP wanted was to make public statements to say or claim that it had negotiated amendments to the bill when, in fact, it did not achieve anything at all. As for the government's amendments, they stayed true to the original Bill C‑12 and had no real effect. These are cosmetic changes.

Even with all this inconsequential busywork in committee, Bill C‑12 does not even establish accountability mechanisms in case of failure. When the bill was introduced, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged this. When he was questioned about the lack of consequences in case reduction targets were not met, the Prime Minister said, “We live in a democracy, and ultimately it is up to Canadians to continue to choose governments that are serious about fighting climate change and that will be accountable to the public every five years.”

In other words, according to the Prime Minister, the act does not actually need to contain binding mechanisms. We just need to trust the Liberal government. In saying that, the Prime Minister admitted right off the bat that his bill was weak. Why introduce it, if not for electoral reasons?

Criticism poured in from all sides, from opposition parties to environmental groups. Even journalists were wondering why the bill did not contain any binding targets. That is unbelievable. The government threw out some figures without backing them up, saying that there would be new targets.

The member for Repentigny and I brought up those famous reduction targets. We fought to ensure that Bill C‑12 would at least contain greenhouse gas reduction targets. It is a climate bill after all.

As I said earlier, at the beginning of the parliamentary session, the Liberal government intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2030. On budget day, that target increased to 36% because of all the funding that was going to be injected. However, a few days later, on Earth Day, the greenhouse gas reduction target went up again to between 40% and 45% by 2030. A few days ago at the G7 meeting, Canada, along with other countries, promised to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030.

The government never managed to include any of these targets, no matter which, in the bill, despite the fact that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change had told us that a target would be set out in Bill C-12. All they had to do was pick one and include it.

That is rather shameful because it tells us that the Liberals know that they will not be able to meet those targets. That is the way it has been since the Kyoto protocol in 2012. Canadian governments have been systematically unable to meet their targets. In our opinion, the fact that the Liberals keep changing the targets without giving them force of law means that they have about as much force as a New Year's resolution.

It is therefore difficult not to be cynical, and I am wondering how many times the Liberals can disappoint people before they do become cynical. I have a lot of things to say about all the ideas that were rejected in committee, all the suggestions we made that the government did not accept. I would have said that it was a missed opportunity, but the Liberal government knew what it was doing from the start. I think that is the most disappointing part of this whole story.

We will debate this bill until late this evening to try to make it better, but what will be will be.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[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.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

The Bloc Québécois amendment provided for a five-year review of the act. We also included several elements of Bill C‑215 in the bill.

There are a lot of things we agree on. Of course climate change is a crisis. We must fight climate change, and we have to act very quickly, because we do not have much time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We want the bill to include measures to fight climate change that will be binding on all future governments.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question and for being so concerned about climate change, which is a very important issue.

The government supported a Bloc Québécois amendment calling for a five-year review of the act and also included several elements of Bill C‑215 in Bill C‑12.

Canadians think it is very important for us to go ahead with this bill. We committed to passing a law to assure Canadians that all future governments will be required to meet the 2050 net-zero targets.

Bill C‑12—Time Allocation Motion

[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—

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, we flattened the curve on pollution. The Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act provides strong accountability and transparency mechanisms. The bill includes measures similar to the Bloc's Bill C-215, and several amendments already adopted by the committee address many of the Bloc's concerns.

We await the outcome of the committee's work with great interest as we continue to move this important bill for Canadians and for future generations.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resuming Debate on the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I could not agree more. In fact, Bill C-215, which I introduced in the House, compels the government to be transparent about its climate ambitions, to have accountability mechanisms and to be accountable if it fails to meet its climate targets. The House, however, defeated my bill. We will try to improve Bill C-12 and ensure that it includes accountability measures.

The government cannot wait until 2030 to be accountable. It needs to begin by 2025. Time is running out, and we need to know whether its commitments are actually being met.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, certainly, I will gladly pick up where I left off. I was a little surprised by the interruption, as I did not think we were there yet.

Bill C-12 needs to include an action plan, measures and a review by an independent body that will assess whether the targets are being met and whether Canada is fulfilling its obligations under the Paris Agreement. The bill is missing that aspect. The Paris Agreement is more than just a declaration of intent. As we have said before, the government needs to walk the talk. It needs to listen to the major environmental groups, which have all pointed out the significant flaws with Bill C-12.

That is what the Green Party member pointed out in her question when she said that this bill is one of the weakest in the world, which is is true, unfortunately.

The best approach would be to take inspiration from Bill C-215, the bill on climate change accountability that was introduced by the Bloc Québécois. Our bill set out binding reduction targets and introduced real accountability mechanisms, and that is what really matters.

The goal of Bill C-12 is not to ensure that Canada fulfills its international commitments, but rather to enshrine into law the existence of a target to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. However, the Paris Agreement is quite clear. In order to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, the middle of this century, we must first cap greenhouse gas emissions around the world as soon as possible.

The purpose of any climate legislation is not to support the government's efforts—which is exactly how this bill is being presented—but rather to force the government to fulfill its commitments and keep it from failing again.

At the beginning of the House debate on Bill C-215, I remember being told that we needed to preserve policy space. However, since a bill can be repealed, policy space does not disappear. Of course, it is much more difficult to repeal legislation than it is to just leave policy space, as the current bill does. Still, I think it is only right for a government that wants to adjust its actual greenhouse gas emission targets downward to be required to follow a much more rigorous process, rather than being able to make such changes lightly.

With our Bill C-215, we wanted the interim emissions reduction target for 2030 to be a reduction of at least 30% below the level of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions in 2005, which is consistent with the Paris Agreement. In comparison, the Liberal Party's Bill C-12 states that the minister will set the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2030 within six months of the day on which the act comes into force. The bill does not actually contain any binding reduction targets. It merely states that it will be up to the minister to announce the new targets.

In the throne speech, the government states that it will bring forward a plan to exceed Canada's 2030 climate goal, and the Prime Minister keeps saying that it will be exceeded. If the government is so sure that it will exceed its reduction target for 2030, why did it not include it in the bill? If the government is so confident, I think it should have nothing to fear from including the targets in the bill. Even if it has concerns about not being able to meet the targets, they should still be written into law.

There is also a problem with the reports. According to the bill, the minister must set targets for the milestone years, but these years are not specified. The targets are established one by one over time, five years before the milestone year. The first target, which should be the one for 2035, will be set in 2030. One question we could ask ourselves is the following: If the progress report is already evaluating whether the interim targets are being met, why would the assessment not be done on an annual basis, after the national inventory report is submitted in accordance with the United Nations framework convention?

In my introduction earlier, I spoke about the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. The bill does not expressly state that the measures must be assessed based on Canada's ability to adhere to the Paris Agreement. However, for the law to truly ensure that the government's actions enable Canada to meet its targets and honour its international commitments, the commissioner's role must be to assess whether the planned measures will allow Canada to meet its targets and how meeting them would enable Canada to honour its obligations under the Paris Agreement.

In addition, Parliament needs to be able to ensure that the government is honouring Canada's international commitments. The legislation must include a mandatory target for 2030. If the Liberal government's good faith were a valid and satisfactory guarantee of Canada's climate success, why would we need climate framework legislation? This is a valid question.

The government cannot say that Bill C-12 contains restrictive measures while at the same time saying that the only real restriction is the outcome of the election. The Bloc Québécois is fully prepared to work with the government, the opposition parties, environmental groups and the public to amend Bill C-12 to ensure that Canada's international climate commitments will actually be honoured.

However, it is a problem that the minister is the one who establishes the body's mandate and that the minister can change this mandate at any time. As the bill stands now, the advisory body is restricted to providing advice with respect to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The fact that experts are not being asked to provide advice on the short-term targets, the interim targets and the 2030 target is yet another example of how the government does not understand that this is a climate emergency. It is not prioritizing the rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill.

One thing is very clear. Climate change is truly the greatest challenge of this century, if not this millennium. The Bloc Québécois examined this bill carefully, and we support it in principle simply because we cannot be against doing the right thing. However, we think that the bill needs improvement. We need to give it some teeth.

Like most environmental protection agencies, the Bloc Québécois was pleased that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change introduced this long-awaited bill.

However, we are somewhat disappointed with how weak it is in its current form. The overall goal of climate legislation should be to make current and future governments responsible for their climate action in order to prevent a perpetual failure to reduce emissions. Targets were set a long time ago, but unfortunately, we sometimes see them being changed along the way. Changes have been made several times over the past 30 years, leading us to believe that we had lowered our emissions when they had actually increased compared to when we first started setting targets.

Unlike Bill C-215, an act respecting Canada’s fulfillment of its greenhouse gas emissions reduction obligations, which was introduced in the House by the Bloc Québécois, Bill C-12 as drafted will not help achieve that objective.

Major changes would be needed for Bill C-12 to have any real impact on ensuring that Canada fulfills its obligations under the Paris Agreement. Also, unlike the Bloc Québécois bill, this bill does nothing to enshrine the Paris Agreement into Canadian law, even though it ought to be. The fact that the Paris targets are not even included in Bill C-12 only confirms that Canada is not serious about its commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050.

Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois believes that the bill should include a binding target of a 30% reduction below Canada's 2005 levels by 2030. The bill should also set an interim target for 2025.

Also, one of the major problems with Bill C-12 is that it does not set out any credible accountability mechanisms for reductions. The only obligation that Bill C-12 imposes on the minister is to prepare a report. Ultimately, the minister will get to assess his own progress and share his findings with the public. Under Bill C-12, the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is almost non-existent, when the commissioner actually needs a bigger operating budget.

The government should enlist neutral, objective, independent institutions and authorities to ensure that these measures really have teeth and to hold the minister to account. Under the bill as it stands now, the minister is accountable only to himself. That is why we also think that there should be an action plan and that the measures taken by the government should be examined by this authority—

National Strategy to Redress Environmental Racism Act

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois does not support Bill C-230 because, although the Bloc Québécois believes in a cleaner and fairer world, this bill is unfortunately a direct attack on Quebec's environmental sovereignty.

The Bloc Québécois is fully aware that there are disparities in living standards in Quebec and Canada. We are very concerned about that and have been for a long time. Our political agendas are already full of proposals that seek to make Quebec a cleaner and fairer nation.

It gives me great pleasure to say that, when it comes to environmental and social policies, Quebec sets an example for the whole world in the way it protects its land and its plant and animal life and the way it fights social inequality.

Although the Bloc Québécois does not support Bill C-230, we do support government efforts to work in concert with indigenous nations, the Government of Quebec and the other governments of Canada to counter the inequities experienced by our minority communities in their relationship with the environment.

We know that an important part of reconciliation with indigenous peoples involves joint initiatives to make Quebec and Canada cleaner and more just. Living conditions for some people and in some communities in Quebec and Canada with respect to the environment are unacceptable, and governments must uphold their responsibilities in this regard. Access to drinking water comes to mind.

Top of mind are our first nations, Métis and Inuit friends. The shame of the profound and indescribable harm done to them by the federal government's laws and decisions dating back to 1867 endures to this day. The federal government's misdeeds haunt us painfully and unremittingly.

It is difficult for indigenous peoples of Quebec and Canada to heal the wounds that the Government of Canada inflicted on them and, incomprehensibly, continues to inflict on them. Unbelievably, the Indian Act is still with us.

Nevertheless, there is hope, because we are all working on a relationship based on recognition, respect and co-operation. There is hope because the Bloc Québécois is working and fighting to make Quebec a country founded on mutual recognition with indigenous nations, a country in which all citizens are equal and everyone reaps the benefits of social and environmental justice.

While there are increasingly well substantiated links between rising pollution levels and various diseases and developmental disabilities, I would still like to take this opportunity to highlight the longer-term implications of environmental inequities, particularly for the different regions of Quebec. These repercussions are very real. One need only compare the populations of the two sides, west and east, of Montreal Island. Life expectancy on the east side, which is more francophone and very multicultural, is 10 years lower than that on the West Island. That is a sad reality.

Putting people's quality of life and health at risk puts the development and sustainability of our communities at risk. If we want to avoid environmentally risky industrial projects, we must create mechanisms that ensure the safety and health of citizens. We also need to be mindful of the support that must be provided to organizations that combat some of the negative effects of industrial projects. These elements have been increasingly well documented, and we know that the quality of the environment affects the physical and cognitive development of individuals. For example, there are statistics pointing to a higher incidence of pervasive development disorders.

April 2 is World Autism Awareness Day. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the painstaking and ground-breaking work of Mohamed Ghoul and his team. I have a huge amount of respect for Mohamed and Lucie Beauregard and the organization they run. They work very hard to help people with autism integrate into society, primarily through music. APPROSH is a clinical psychosocial intervention program developed by Mr. Ghoul for young people and adults who have neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism.

Mr. Ghoul has been developing his training program for years and running the Maison-école des artistes autistes & le monde, a place for people with autism to come together and learn. Mr. Ghoul has been recognized around the world for his work, but his programs have been left out of Canada's federal programs. I am mentioning him today because it is important to think big and think about the potential impacts on the well-being of Quebeckers.

Let us come back to Bill C-230. In order to establish a national strategy to repair the harm caused by what our colleague from Cumberland—Colchester calls environmental racism, this bill provides that the Minister of the Environment consult with representatives from provincial governments, municipal governments, indigenous communities and other communities affected, as well as any other person or entity affected. The purpose would be to gather information and statistics on the location of environmental hazards and the health problems in the most affected communities.

The Bloc Québécois has no problem with everything to that point. However, Bill C-230 is problematic in that it stipulates that the Government of Canada will assess the administration and enforcement of environmental laws in Quebec. We categorically oppose that because when it comes to the environment, the laws and regulations of the municipalities of Quebec and the Government of Quebec have to apply in Quebec, even though the environment is a shared responsibility. That is indisputable.

What is more, the Bloc Québécois, through my colleague the hon. member for Jonquière, introduced Bill C-225, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act and other acts with regard to the application of provincial law. We wanted the Government of Quebec to have priority, even total sovereignty, on matters of environmental protection on our national territory, but the other political parties opposed us.

We also introduced another bill, and it too was rejected by a majority of the members of this Parliament. It was in response to another bill that lacked scope and restrictions introduced by the Liberals who, in theory, want us to try to achieve their greenhouse gas reduction targets under the Paris Agreement. We introduced Bill C-215, an act respecting Canada’s fulfillment of its greenhouse gas emissions reduction obligations, sponsored by my hon. colleague for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. This bill wanted to provide the means and some teeth to ensure that the Liberal government met its own commitments on fighting climate change, but it was rejected.

The House of Commons is in no position to lecture Quebeckers about the environment, because the parliamentarians of the other political parties are incapable of turning their words into coherent action while respecting provincial jurisdictions. Why is Ottawa again attempting to impose its will to the detriment of the state of Quebec? Furthermore, I would venture to say that for some time Canada has sullied Quebec's exemplary environmental reputation. Therefore, we are saying no to Bill C-230 primarily because Quebec's social policies are not within the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Furthermore, Quebec does not need any lessons from the Canadian government on social policies. A quick look at the history of Quebec and Canada shows how Quebec has long had forward-thinking and high-quality social policies that have even been copied by the governments of other Canadian provinces and territories. This is a credit to Quebec, and we are always proud to see our Canadian friends open up to our way of doing things and our way of building a more just society.

In closing, there is no doubt in the minds of Bloc Québécois members that Bill C-230, an act respecting the development of a national strategy to redress environmental racism, is nothing more than another attempt at federal interference, much like the ones we in the Bloc are accustomed to opposing day after day in most of the legislation introduced in the House of Commons. With Bill C-230, the federal government would no longer be content with disrespecting Quebec's environmental laws. It would assume the right to assess the administration and enforcement of environmental laws in each province. The idea of joint consultations with indigenous nations, Quebec City and Ottawa is certainly a good intention, but it must end with just consultations.

The Bloc Québécois will not allow the federal government to infringe on areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and its municipalities. I would like to remind all members of this Parliament that Quebec's territory belongs to Quebec, and it is up to the Government of Quebec and Quebeckers to protect it as they see fit. Once again, Bill C-230 clearly proves that a federal government that seeks to centralize authority has no respect for Quebec's sovereignty and jurisdictions. It is important to remind members of that. It bears repeating over and over, because the federal government does not seem to want to hear it: it is up to the Government of Quebec to enforce its own laws, period.

I will close with brief editorial note. A survey was presented this morning that clearly illustrates how the federal government wants to impose an energy corridor that would run through Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the Gazoduq project. The government wanted to move western Canadian oil through Quebec with energy east, but that project was rejected. It is now trying to move the project somewhere else, where it would affect a population that is perhaps more vulnerable and less involved, the population in northern Quebec, in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, in my riding. However, the people of Quebec do not support that project, and I would like the House to take note of that.

Climate Emergency Action Act

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have had three bills introduced in the same session on achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, which I think sends a powerful message about how we need to do what is necessary to reach that goal.

The time has come to take decisive action to combat climate change. Canada needs climate change legislation that is rooted in the principles of good governance, guided by transparency, accountability, equity and, most importantly, science.

I commend and thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for this bill. I also appreciate the references to indigenous nations and the consideration given to indigenous knowledge. For example, we can learn a lot from New Zealand's experience of considering indigenous knowledge and incorporating the Maori people's good governance of the ocean into its policies. Government stakeholders worked in conjunction with Maori organizations and partners to develop the seven principles for ecosystem-based management for this shared governance.

I will now get back to Canada and the importance of protecting biodiversity in our fight against climate change. I cannot resist saying a few words about the large number of programs for indigenous peoples that involve promoting and developing projects that pollute and harm the environment instead of focusing on forward-looking and innovative plans for the future.

Relations between the Crown and Canada's first nations are a topical issue. Reconciliation is a profound and vital act. In order to achieve it, we must listen to first nations' environmental concerns and welcome their contributions. Nothing productive will come of always portraying their environmental concerns as those of opponents.

We recognize that indigenous peoples' knowledge of the land is extremely relevant in managing ecosystems and protecting biodiversity. In that regard, we must not just integrate the indigenous fact into a climate law for aesthetic reasons in order to ease our conscience. The intention must be firm and sincere. Experts have done a great deal of work, but unfortunately it has not translated into political action or legal commitments. The government could start by providing access to safe drinking water.

That being said, the Bloc Québécois agrees with the principles and objectives set out in Bill C-232. Just today, March 11, 2021, Quebec began honouring the victims of COVID-19, but let us look at what has happened over the past year.

Unfortunately, over the past year, the government has done a lot to help the fossil fuel industry, rather than to fight climate change.

According to the International Institute for Sustainable Development's 2020 report, subsidies for fossil fuels neared $5 billion.

The government made promises during the election campaign and once it was in power, but it has not acted on those promises. Whatever happened to the modernization of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? What about the two billion trees that are supposed to be planted? What have they done to intensify climate action? What is their plan to end government support for the fossil fuel sector?

The Bloc Québécois has always taken a strong stance on environmental protection and the fight against climate change and what must be done to reverse Canada's unfortunate trajectory. Why not show the people that their elected representatives are committed to fighting climate change by being honest about the facts and pragmatic about the solutions available to us? Does Canada not want to preserve what is left of its international reputation for its efforts to fight climate change?

Every economy around the world is struggling, and everything has been disrupted, but many countries are responding with determination and resilience. The Canadian government should pay close attention to countries that are making progress.

It will certainly be crucial for the current and future governments not to drag their feet. In the challenge we are facing, maintaining the status quo would actually be a step backwards. What we really need is to leap ahead.

That is why bills introduced by the opposition parties must be taken into consideration. In that sense, Bill C-232, much like its companion legislation, Bill C-215 introduced by the Bloc Québécois, would benefit just as much from being improved if it is to be considered a legislative framework. Bill C-232 falls somewhere in between, since it is neither an action plan nor a proposed legislative framework. It is a halfway point and needs to be completed. I say that as a point of constructive feedback.

Here are some examples of the clarifications needed.

Clause 4 states that the minister must develop an action framework in consultation with indigenous peoples and civil society. Providing for that kind of consultation is appropriate, but the details of that need to be specified. Public consultation should be supplementary to the consideration of expert opinions. It should include elements that are ultimately incorporated into framework climate legislation.

Dedicating a section to targets is good. The strength of the bill is that it includes the target, specifies it and clearly states that meeting the target is mandatory. It should also clearly outline the policies it proposes, and they must correspond to the area of federal jurisdiction and not that of the provinces. Environmental policy is largely the responsibility of the provincial governments, and successfully fighting climate change depends in large part on the policies of and actions taken by Quebec and the provinces.

Measures for transitioning to a green economy also need to be incorporated. The Bloc Québécois's green and fair recovery plan can be used as a model. I want to be positive and give members something to think about by raising the experience of the United Kingdom, which is garnering a lot of attention, and rightly so. The success of its climate legislation is measurable, and the outcomes have been analyzed. I want to share with my colleagues some important observations.

The success of the United Kingdom's climate change act has been attributed to several factors. However, experts have emphasized the benefits of including the action plan within the text of the legislation. Why? Because doing so lends legitimacy to the act, makes it easier to understand and increases the support of civil society, economic and social stakeholders, and political actors at all levels. That is what ensures long-term stability. The legislation thus becomes permanent and there is less risk of backtracking at the whim of successive governments.

To critics of such an approach who may fear that it would weaken the legislator's prerogatives, I will point out that it is possible to strike a balance between policy directions and the different levels of precision or flexibility of a plan. The United Kingdom has done it, and has even inspired other states to try to do the same.

A recent poll was done of people, mostly elected officials, who were involved in the legislative process. They acknowledged that the U.K. climate change committee owed its success to its independence. They noted that having directions and recommendations from a pool of experts on every legislative aspect contributed to a political consensus. Why? Because the work was done by independent voices and that makes it credible. The elected members found that what had been communicated allowed them to better understand the issues and come up with better solutions. They added that once impartiality was established and in the absence of political or other interests, collaboration and consensus followed.

The United Kingdom has seen its greenhouse gas emissions drop by 28% since 2010, while securing economic growth of nearly 19%. During the same period, Canada had similar results in economic growth, but saw its emissions increase by 3%.

Several observations can be made to show that Canada's climate governance is not working. A healthy climate governance, one that works and is proven to meet targets, requires projects to be assessed annually. Second, the government needs to be required to table a response to the annual report. Third, the interim objectives have to be set long in advance. Finally, the recommendations have to be evidence-based.

In closing, I want to say that, in a spirit of co-operation and working for the common good, a climate law needs to be ambitious. What is more, the government must not ignore what the opposition parties are saying. Let us get motivated. We will get there.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-12, since I am concerned about environmental issues.

My party is in favour of the principle in Bill C-12, but unfortunately the bill does not go far enough. We were off to a good start, but sadly, the government shows no ambition with Bill C-12.

I would like to point out, because it seems essential to me, that all countries that care about the environment are putting forward legislation that will set greenhouse gas, or GHG, reduction targets. Unfortunately, in Bill C-12 these targets are nowhere to be found. Through the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, my party introduced Bill C-215, which sets greenhouse gas reduction targets.

If you compare Bill C-12 against Bill C-215, you quickly realize that nothing in Bill C-12 holds the government accountable for meeting its net-zero emission targets. It contains nothing to make future governments accountable for their actions. However, that would be necessary. There are no target requirements.

I find it rather strange that Bill C-12 sets out intentions. I always have good intentions. I want to lose weight. I intend to do it, but, unfortunately, I do not. We need to set achievable targets. That is a fact, but we need to at least set some targets. Bill C-215 talked about a 30% reduction by 2030.

I spoke earlier about the lack of a control mechanism—other than the political parties, which is rather problematic—to let the government know, objectively and impartially, whether it is meeting its targets. This bill does not contain any such mechanism, unlike the bill introduced by my party.

The government was on the right track, but it did not go far enough. When I was thinking about it earlier, I wondered why the government would be so wishy-washy about climate targets. Often, when we talk about the environment, I think the biggest challenge is striking a balance between the environment and the economy.

For those with an interest in environmental issues, the 1987 Brundtland report introduced the idea of sustainable development and, for the first time, people tried to strike a balance between the environment and the economy. I think the Canadian government has a lot of work to do on that front.

Balancing the environment and the economy is challenging, but so is figuring out how to overcome national self-interest. That is something that often comes up. Every time we talk about climate change, we hear the same key phrase. It is something I often hear from my Conservative colleagues. They say, “Yes, but China and the U.S. are doing worse”, as though that clears us of all responsibility.

There are therefore two main questions. How do we overcome national self-interest? How do we strike a balance between the economy and the environment? These two questions lead me to the crux of the environmental issue in Canada. The problem, in a word, is oil.

The Canadian economy revolves entirely around the oil industry. The Quebec nation often pays the price of a national self-interest centred on the oil industry. If I am not mistaken, other than Norway, the Quebec nation is one of the only nations in the world whose economy is not based on fossil fuels.

We therefore need to make both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party aware of the fact that Canada's future does not lie in petroleum resources. The best example is what can be done with the forestry industry. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources held six meetings and was told by the main stakeholders in the forestry industry that it is probably the most promising sector in the fight against GHGs. We must make good use of the forest. It is probably the most promising sector.

The forest is a carbon sink. After 70 years, a tree begins to release the carbon it has sequestered all its life through a natural process. It will either be devoured by insects, or rot, or be consumed by fire. Therefore, we must collect this wood, which has sequestered some carbon, and make full use of it, something the federal government has never considered.

I will give an example that I have repeated ad nauseam for some time. Take the construction sector. If we replace a cubic meter of steel and concrete with wood, we can reduce CO2 emissions by between 1.1 tonnes and 2.1 tonnes. This would represent 18 tonnes of carbon sequestered in 20 cubic metres of wood used for every house that would be built in Quebec.

I mentioned the construction sector, but there are many other possible applications. Now, with what is known as the bioeconomy, we can replace all petroleum-based products and generate bioplastics and even the medical equipment that was in short supply during the pandemic.

One company, FPInnovations, managed to make masks out of wood pulp in just under six weeks. We now know that we can use moulds that are also made out of wood pulp to make certain types of masks that can replace the well-known N95 masks that have been in short supply during this crisis.

If the federal government wants to meet targets it should start by setting some. To meet them, simple measures can be put in place. In its recovery plan, the Bloc Québécois proposes using carbon footprint as a criterion for purchasing power in the federal government's procurement policy. That is entirely feasible and we could leverage that into support for the forestry industry.

I want to address another essential point. I talked about national self-interest and the fact that we must reconcile the economy and the environment.

During the period from 2017 to 2020, the federal government invested $24 billion in the oil industry. Out of that $24 billion, $17 billion was used to nationalize the Trans Mountain pipeline.

During that same period, the federal government invested $950 million in Canada's entire forestry industry. For Quebec, that means just $71 million a year. Out of that $950 million, 75% are loans. These are not net investments going into the forestry sector.

This is clearly a double standard. As long as we stick to the narrative of putting oil before technologies that would help us reduce our carbon footprint, we will have the same problem. I do not want to malign anyone, but I think that this situation might explain the federal government's lack of ambition when it comes to setting greenhouse gas reduction targets.

As I was saying earlier, we have a solution. The forestry industry is where the economy and the environment intersect. Everyone is talking about the huge potential for innovation in the forestry industry, but the Government of Canada has not committed to or invested in this solution.

Our other solution has to do with transportation electrification. The government has indicated that it plans to make transportation electrification one aspect of its recovery plan. Now, if I were unscrupulous, I would point out that this plan is mainly focused on the economy of Ontario, the only province that no longer provides rebates for the purchase of electric vehicles. I am not unscrupulous, though.

This may be a step in the right direction for Quebec and its expertise. We already have expertise in batteries and we are quite advanced when it comes to hydroelectricity. The possibility of transportation electrification is—

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic Relationship

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

Madam Speaker, I feel bad for my colleague. I was really looking forward to his speech, because I really appreciate his work. Unfortunately, he ran out of time and was cut off right when he was about to talk about energy trade as it relates to the environment, I think.

I would very much like to hear how he reconciles those two aspects. I would also like him to draw a parallel with Bill C-215, which we tried to get passed this week, but unfortunately his colleagues voted against it.

Keystone XL Pipeline

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member. There is a global transition that is happening toward a greener economy. As I mentioned in my remarks, energy companies are focused on that too. They are committed to being there. We can find a balance to be able to move forward. We have invested in green energy, $15 billion and a climate accountability act before Christmas. We are focused on being able to support both in the days ahead, because it is not one or the other. We can make both work.

Climate Emergency Action Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great pleasure for me to speak to the environment and climate change, and I think we need to do so as much as possible in this forum.

I welcome this initiative by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who introduced a bill on the climate emergency. She and I have had an opportunity to discuss it, and we certainly agree on how important it is for the government to legislate on its climate action. We cannot say it often enough: We are in the midst of a climate crisis, and the government must go beyond good intentions and rhetoric and come up with a truly binding action plan to force the hand of all stakeholders and industries so they take concrete action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

This urgency can be felt everywhere. In my region, the last few days have served as quite a reality check. Last Tuesday, we saw the flow of the Nouvelle River in the Gaspé Peninsula in my riding increase from 20 cubic metres per second to 470 cubic metres per second in just a few hours. Many of my constituents' homes flooded, and roads and culverts in the area were damaged by rivers whose banks overflowed due to the thaw and heavy rains.

These heavy winter rains will become more frequent and intense. A study conducted by researchers at Université Laval shows that damage from flooding caused by ice jams could increase by an average of 30% in the coming years due to climate change. Within the next 50 years, flood damage could increase by about 50% on the Matane river and 75% on the Matapédia river, two rivers in my riding. Passing a bill like Bill C-232 that implements a climate emergency action framework is very important.

The Bloc Québécois subscribes to the general principles and objectives of this bill, including the transition to a green economy, a fair transition, respect for indigenous rights, as well as taking public health and social justice into consideration in efforts to fight climate change. I have to say that the concept of social justice is paramount, as our colleague from Winnipeg Centre pointed out.

One important theme, climate justice, keeps coming up more and more. Climate justice goes back to the idea that the current climate crisis is not just tied to a scientific phenomenon, because it has social, economic and political roots and consequences. What we need to keep in mind is that the climate crisis will not affect all of us equally, simply because we do not all have the same financial, technical and material means to cope with it.

Requiring climate justice means demanding that governments honour their international commitments and take tangible measures to ensure that the burden of this crisis does not rest solely on the least fortunate members of our society. Currently, some 100 million people live in areas that are below sea level. Some are protected by levees, but most have no protection, which is a flagrant example of climate injustice.

Climate change has the potential to reshape cities, economies, shorelines and entire regions of the world, but we need to be asking ourselves the following question: How effectively will coastal protections be able to preserve our coastlines, and for how much longer? Since 2006, the oceans have been rising about four millimetres a year. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, better known as IPCC, has revealed a rather compelling piece of information. The IPCC says that this rate could increase 100-fold if greenhouse gas emissions remain unchanged.

Inuit villages in northern Quebec are at risk of disappearing, being swallowed up by high tides or mud as the permafrost melts. Heat waves, drought, flooding, tornadoes, exceptionally high tides and shoreline erosion are increasingly common and are affecting vulnerable populations the most. These vulnerable populations have been exposed to 475 million additional heat wave events around the world, translating to increased morbidity and mortality rates.

According to the most recent report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change, the last 20 years have seen an increase of almost 54% in heat-related mortality in people older than 65, and this high cost in terms of human lives and suffering is associated with effects on economic output, with 302 billion hours of potential labour capacity lost in 2019. That is significant.

The links between the planet's health and human health are increasingly obvious. According to scientists, by 2030, several parts of Quebec will be partially or completely under water, such as Sainte-Flavie, in my riding, the Magdalen Islands, Sainte-Marie-de-Beauce, areas around Lac des Deux Montagnes, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the North Shore, Mauricie and even parts of the national capital.

It is worrisome when we start to see tangible connections between climate change and its effects on our communities. That is why the federal government must immediately implement measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and these measures must consider the most vulnerable populations, which are the first to suffer the consequences of climate change.

Unfortunately, the most developed countries have reached an impasse in their discussions on climate change, but stricter regulations obviously need to be put in place. We are therefore wondering why these countries do not impose greenhouse gas reduction targets on certain industries. It seems rather ridiculous to me that the government believes that it can gently encourage businesses to behave ethically. A drastic change is needed. It will take governments that have the courage to act.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bloc Québécois subscribes to the general principles and objectives of Bill C-232. However, unlike the Bloc Québécois's climate change bill, Bill C-215, that I introduced in the House on November 4, Bill C-232 does not require the current or future governments to set greenhouse gas reduction targets. It also does not provide for the setting of interim targets and does not hold the government responsible or accountable for meeting those targets. There are two elements that are key to climate legislation: reduction targets and accountability mechanisms. That is fundamental.

Canada's international commitments under the Paris Agreement must be enshrined in Canadian legislation to make them mandatory. We must not only raise our targets, but also require the government to announce all the measures it intends to take to reach them. The Minister of the Environment must implement an action plan that satisfies the requirements of genuinely binding climate legislation without delay.

Without detracting from what is good about Bill C-232, it could be considerably improved by setting out mechanisms and tools to ensure that Canada's climate action and its international climate objectives are aligned.

The time to act is now. If Bill C-232 is to serve as framework climate legislation, it must include elements that are essential to framework climate legislation. It is as simple as that.

Just this past Wednesday, UN Secretary-General António Guterres deplored humanity's suicidal war with nature. He said that “making peace with nature” must be every person on this planet's absolute priority in the 21st century.

As we all know, the latest climate news is not good. According to the World Meteorological Organization, 2020 is on track to be one of the hottest years ever recorded.

If we do not take immediate action, it will be much more difficult and costly to adapt to the future impacts of these changes. The government seems much more interested in the financial impact than the climate impact, so it would be well advised to act now to save money in the future.

The government talks about achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 without knowing how, exactly, it will do so. I suggest that we start with fossil fuels. According to the UN Environment Programme, governments need to act now to decrease fossil fuel production by 6% per year to limit catastrophic global warming.

It is all well and good to contribute to these efforts on an individual and local basis, but it is clear that the main catalyst for change will be at the government level, through laws and regulations. The government has a responsibility to lead by example.

Furthermore, we are now experiencing a health crisis at the same time as this climate crisis. The health crisis is forcing governments to invest billions of dollars in the economic recovery. This recovery should not come at the expense of the climate emergency, but instead in conjunction with the emergency, with a focus on transitioning to a green economy.

Canada must stop its efforts to stimulate the economic recovery by subsidizing the fossil fuel industries. We must prevent the economic recovery from having a rebound effect of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. To that end, we must invest instead in sectors that reduce our impact on the environment and that will have a positive long-term economic effect on our communities.

I will close by stating that the Bloc Québécois will always be the first to want to pass legislation on the climate emergency. Bill C-232 is a good step. However, to truly respond to the climate emergency, it would be much more responsible to pass framework legislation, like my Bill C-215, which would require the federal government to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets in accordance with its international commitments. That is essential.

We no longer have the means to postpone the fight against climate change. The emergency is real and the physical and economic health of our population is at stake.

[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?

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for his question.

I do not claim to be an expert on environmental matters. What I do know, however, is that some measures have been proposed, such as Bill C-215, that will allow us to set and achieve realistic targets that will be validated by the commissioner of the environment.

For instance, the commissioner of the environment could recommend various types of legally binding carbon exchanges. This is one thing that could be achieved through the bills we hope will pass.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent speech. We all have the same objective, which is to save our planet.

I would like my colleague to talk about the current situation. The government opposite has been in office for five years. I remember that when Parliament was shut down during the first Parliament, when I was the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, we were already talking about the climate emergency.

Today, we are discussing Bill C-12. There is also the Bloc Québécois's Bill C-215. The government is putting things off.

I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks about this inaction. Urgent action is needed. We need to act. Nothing concrete is being done to save our planet.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the government's new bill, Bill C-12, on achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Fortunately, this is a subject that brings people together more than it divides them.

When it comes to climate change, most people agree that we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions if we, and especially future generations, do not want to hit a wall. We all agree that it is our moral obligation to leave behind a planet that is still habitable for future generations.

Since climate change is an issue that affects everyone, it has brought together many people who would normally not work together. We all have one thing in common, the earth, and we know that there is no planet B. That is what brought about half a million people together to march in the streets of Montreal on September 27, 2019. That is what motivated a large number of women who did not have much in common aside from the fact that they are mothers, to come together and form Mothers Step In, a group that I had the pleasure of meeting with on Monday.

The goal of reducing greenhouse gas production has even gained widespread acceptance among big oil companies like Shell, which announced a program called “drive carbon neutral” two weeks ago. In short, reducing greenhouse gases is such a worthy goal that it is not surprising that there is such a consensus. However, here is the problem: Too often, when we talk about greenhouse gas reduction and net-zero goals, that is all it is—a goal. As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry once said, a goal without a plan is just a wish.

Let's be clear: We are not against Bill C-12, far from it. Every step in the right direction is welcome. However, we do regret that this bill takes only baby steps and that time is running out. The climate emergency is very real and is a major concern among Canadians. Although Bill C-12 was intended to be resolutely green, we regret that it is actually a little too dangerously beige.

When it comes time to demonstrate political realism, people like to quote Montesquieu, who said that perfect is the enemy of the good. However, climate change is an exception to that quote. We do not have the luxury to be good. We have to be impeccable. We have a duty to succeed. To use the classic expression, we are doomed to nothing short of excellence if we do not want to be doomed at all.

Bill C-12 has good intentions. On the eve of election 2019, the Liberal Party said in their platform that they would “set legally-binding, five-year milestones, based on the advice of the experts and consultations with Canadians, to reach net-zero emissions”. The Liberal Party also said it would “appoint a group of scientists, economists, and experts to recommend the best path to get to net-zero”. Then comes Bill C-12: gone are the binding targets, gone are the follow-up and rigorous evaluation by an independent body.

If between the promise and the bill the commitments have diminished, there is genuine concern that the measures that should result from enforcing the law will also diminish if they are not adequately entrenched in the bill in advance. That is why it is important to point out the flaws of Bill C-12, and I am going to speak about at least four of them.

First, Bill C-12 does not include targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions. The only constraint found in the bill is that the government is required to set new targets every five years. The government can move ahead haphazardly and change its game plan as it goes and as it sees fit. That is concerning because we have seen in the past that this way of doing things does not work.

From the beginning of its mandate, the government has set greenhouse gas reduction targets, but has never managed to meet them. The development of a plan requires anticipating from the beginning the steps required to carry it out. Moreover, to ensure that the plan works, the government must include benchmarks that cannot continually be lowered.

Second, Bill C-12 is essentially a commitment from the government to assess its own performance. This is also not very promising and it shows that the government does not take this seriously. Pursuant to clause 16 of the bill, the minister himself will write a report detailing the reasons why Canada failed to meet its targets, if applicable, and the actions Canada will take to address this failure. I remember, way back when, we used to correct our own or a peer's schoolwork. We were usually asked to give ourselves or our friends a grade. I do not recall anyone ever failing an assignment under this system. It may be a worthwhile exercise for developing skills to critique one's own work, but it would be a very inappropriate way to grade a final exam before graduation, for example.

I am glad to see that Bill C-12 requires that the reports on the targets, regardless of whether they are met, be tabled in Parliament and made public. This transparency is not inherently bad, but without an independent authority to assess the progress, we can unfortunately expect to see some self-congratulatory grandstanding.

Third, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, most people are of a same mind on climate. Quebeckers and many Canadians agree on the notion of an emergency. Everyone knows that tomorrow is already too late and that even today is almost too late.

In recent months, governments, cities and universities in Quebec and Canada have declared a climate emergency. This is not the time to procrastinate. As the saying goes, never leave for tomorrow what you can do today. If we agree on the definition of the term “emergency”, then we must take concrete action very quickly to avoid the serious consequences of climate change. For that reason the government must require that the state respect its own commitments. The law should include a mechanism that will make the government accountable as well as a reporting mechanism.

Fourth, the Liberals unfortunately seem to want to always postpone their targets. Not so long ago, in the throne speech, the government said it was going to introduce a plan that would help Canada exceed its climate targets for 2030. Promises were being made for 2030, but the problem is that 2050 is all they are talking about now.

They promised to raise the target for 2030, but this is not even enshrined in their climate bill. As they say, those who can do more can also do less. If the government is so confident it can achieve net zero by 2050, it should be just as confident it can achieve one of the milestones needed to reach that final goal, namely reducing emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. Therefore, it should not shy away from enshrining this objective in Bill C-12.

The environment no longer has the luxury of waiting for the government to show its goodwill and fight global warming. It is with this sense of urgency in mind that the Bloc Québécois has introduced a bill on climate accountability. We need legislation that will pave the way towards achieving the objectives that will let us face future generations without feelings of shame or failure. This plan must not be open to change at the whim of the current or future governments.

That element of accountability and predictability is the very purpose of Bill C-215, which was introduced by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. I would like to go over the highlights. First, it will integrate Canada's Paris Agreement commitments into domestic law to make them mandatory. It will require the federal government to raise its greenhouse gas reduction targets to the same level as the Paris targets. It will also require Ottawa to lay out a detailed action plan to achieve its targets. It will task the environment commissioner with determining whether the government's efforts will enable it to achieve its targets and with telling the government how to achieve them. Lastly, it will hold the federal government to account in the House if it fails to keep its promises.

Despite its shortcomings, we will support Bill C-12 because we do not want future Canadians to be disappointed in us or to feel that we failed them. We hope the federal government will support our bill in return.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. He sits with me on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

We obviously support Bill C-215, and we tabled it before Bill C-12. Our bill contains targets, including interim targets, as well as measures for achieving them, and it ensures transparency with respect to the method of calculating greenhouse gas emissions. These are all proposals that we will make to ensure that Bill C-12 becomes a real climate act.

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

Madam Speaker, first, the member's own party has a bill, I believe it is Bill C-215, that seeks many of the same things as this bill. Why is the Bloc supporting the Liberal bill over their own member's bill?

Second, it seems strange to me that, in a bill that Liberals like to trumpet as, somehow, being an accountability and transparency bill, there is very little transparency or accountability for the government. In fact, the initial target at 2030 will be the first opportunity. That is more than two majority governments away from today.

I would like to hear her thoughts on both of those themes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, it feels funny taking the floor after such an emotional moment.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

Bill C-12 talks about an action plan. That is the term used. To us, an action plan means measures, tasks, activities, deadlines and the assignment of responsibility in order to carry out a project. Given the importance of the issue it addresses, although we agree with the principle, we feel Bill C-12 needs some work. Members can count on the Bloc Québécois to propose improvements.

We are on the cusp of the fifth anniversary of the Paris Agreement on December 12, and we are discussing Bill C-12. I just had to point out the coincidental numbering that makes me laugh.

Canada can no longer say that it is preparing for a transition. The transition should have started a long time ago, long before the pandemic brought all the world's economies to their knees, long before capitalism was forcibly subdued by the cessation of all commercial activity, long before people finally realized how essential the people, mainly women, who work in health care and education are.

Today we can no longer call it a transition. We need to call it a leap, as Naomi Klein would say. This bill must be able to evolve in order to play the role it should be designed to fill, namely a permanent tool that includes all of the necessary accountability mechanisms in order to guide this government and future governments toward a new economy and a future that all generations can look to with hope.

Bill C-12 appears to have glossed over one element that is central to the democratic process, and that is the sacred principle of the separation of the legislative and executive branches. This issue crops up in several clauses.

First, in clause 20, there is no independent assessment. The minister will be assessing his own government's work. The bill mentions an advisory body. Why not? It is a good idea, except that we soon realize that it will not be playing the role we would expect. The members, who are appointed by the minister, do not have a mandate to advise on short-term goals or interim targets. Their mandate is simply to provide advice with respect to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

The advisory body needs to be independent so it can make recommendations and be heard. As the people who drafted Bill C-12 say, notwithstanding the terminology used at the press conference, an advisory body is not an independent authority.

In our opinion, it is crucial that a real advisory body be set up. It must be made up of independent experts with the powers, abilities and resources to conduct detailed analyses, advise the government on its targets and plans, collaborate on follow-ups and monitor progress.

The other issue is that nothing is binding. There are no consequences for not achieving the targets. If the minister thinks things are not going well, Bill C-12 gives him free rein to change the previously established targets. According to the bill, “The Governor in Council may make regulations for the purposes of this Act, including regulations...amending or specifying the methodology to be used to report”. The targets will be changed and the methodology will stay the same, and Canada will once again present itself as a leader in the fight against climate change.

I would like to talk about clause 24 and the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. Bill C-12 recommends that the commissioner examine the implementation of the measures aimed at mitigating climate change at least once every five years. I would like to remind the House that the recommendations made by the experts in the commissioner's office are not binding, so the wording seems a little wishy-washy to us.

Currently, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is playing the role he is meant to play, and the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development know what I am talking about. What I mean is that his office deserves respect. He should be commended for the invaluable work he is capable of doing. He should be given powers commensurate with the gravity of the offences, the gravity of the shortfalls and the inaction that his team has noted in many of its investigations.

These experts' recommendations are too often ignored by the government departments and agencies in question. That is why his role needs to be strengthened.

The current state of affairs is nothing less than a hindrance to the application of corrective measures and adjustments to the government's actions on climate, pollution and environmental protection.

Once amended, this bill will be crucial for the future. It is therefore important to genuinely involve the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development by giving him powers that will ensure that follow-up is done properly and that independent experts can contribute to the goals.

The Bloc Québécois has nothing against economic prosperity. I am digressing a little, but I am saying this because many members said in their speeches that the most polluting resource is our hope for future prosperity.

In our opinion, all we have to do is not open the door to lobbyists for a while and instead learn about the current movement. This is not just the Bloc Québécois talking. Big investors unequivocally stated in the New York Times this summer that climate change is the greatest systemic threat to the economy.

It is not a trivial matter when investment companies start taking $1 trillion in assets out of companies associated with fossil fuels. The leader of the Bloc Québécois mentioned the possibility of taking the more than $12 billion sunk into Trans Mountain and redirecting it to industry in Alberta, because we think that a green shift can mean prosperity for all.

It would be sad if we were to choose, willingly or under some influence, to spend public funds to enrich private companies, like oil and gas companies, which are often foreign owned, to the detriment of the renewable energy sources of the future and innovative projects like the ones under way in Quebec.

Right now, the government is subsidizing polluting industries that are making us sick. Quebec and the provinces then have to use health care funding to heal their residents. Incidentally, we still have not seen an increase in health transfers.

In another vein, why does the government not work with indigenous communities on clean energy infrastructure projects? On November 13, it said that it was going to extend funding for indigenous participation by investing in oil and gas, not in clean energy.

I have a bit of time left, but not enough to quickly list all the measures, practices, subsidies, policies and allocations that are literally undermining the progress we could be making together.

Is there anyone here, whether physically or virtually, who does not believe what the science is telling us about climate change? Is there anyone here who does not see the crystal clear link between the environment and human health? I am reaching out to all members, especially my fellow members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, who are concerned by this worrisome situation. Let us not be divided on this issue.

Bill C-215, tabled by the Bloc Québécois, contains the elements needed to produce solid legislation. The legislation needs to be tangible, with clear accountability and targets.

Canada is now touting multiculturalism and the importance of multilateralism, so it should quickly rectify the embarrassing lack of reference to the Paris Agreement. I say “embarrassing” because the Paris Agreement was signed five years ago. This will force Canada to set a target under that agreement for 2030, which should be included in the bill.

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

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

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

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

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved that Bill C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois climate change critic, I am pleased to speak directly to the parliamentary secretary. He spoke about the government's objectives of exceeding 2030 greenhouse gas reduction targets and becoming carbon neutral by 2050.

These objectives are essentially those of Bill C-215, an act respecting Canada’s fulfillment of its greenhouse gas emissions reduction obligations, which I introduced in the House of Commons a few months ago. First, I would like to know whether the government will vote in favour of this bill, because I know it intends to introduce legislation about this.

Second, I will come back to the 2030 climate target. At this time, if we rely on Environment Canada's most optimistic scenario, Canada will reduce its green house gas emissions by 19.45% by 2030, with a shortfall of 77 megatonnes. What tangible measures will this government introduce to exceed these objectives?

Climate Change Accountability Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-215, An Act respecting Canada’s fulfillment of its greenhouse gas emissions reduction obligations.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce my first bill in the House of Commons. As an environmentalist and as the Bloc Québécois climate change critic, it went without saying that I would present the Canadian government with a practical solution to help the fight against climate change.

The climate change accountability bill seeks to compel the government to not only stop speaking out of both sides of its mouth, but also to show some consistency and take its place as a world environment leader. The commitments made around the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions deserve to be kept, as does the commitment to become carbon neutral by 2050.

In this era of climate emergency, I hope that the government will recognize the importance of this bill and will come up with a real action plan, one that is both ambitious and realistic. I hope that the government will be open to working with the Bloc Québécois to ensure a healthy and responsible future for my generation and those to come.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)