House of Commons Hansard #87 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was change.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I have the honour to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 23(5) of the Auditor General Act, the fall 2016 reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons. These reports are permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I have the honour to lay upon the table the annual reports on the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the year 2015-16. These reports are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to its study of operational stress injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder in public safety officers and first responders.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-312, An Act to establish a national cycling strategy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a private member's bill to establish a Canadian cycling strategy. We need to do more to make Canada a cycling nation. This act would commit the federal government to setting clear targets for the expansion of cycling-friendly infrastructure and would encourage more Canadians to choose cycling as their mode of transportation.
Canada is facing many challenges, including soaring health care and infrastructure costs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic congestion. Cycling is a sustainable transportation solution. It is low cost, environmentally friendly, eliminates pollution, can be done anywhere in any weather and by any person, and it is healthy.
Cycling advocates have long called for a national cycling strategy where the federal government would work with the provinces and municipalities to increase commuter recreation and tourism cycling across Canada. My bill is for all Canadians, regardless of age, ability, gender, economic status, or location. Together we can make Canada a cycling nation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a number of petitions again today that reflect the fact that in our federal criminal law system, a preborn child is not recognized as a victim with respect to violent crime. When a pregnant woman in Canada is assaulted or killed, because we offer no legal protection for preborn children today, no charge can be laid in the death of that preborn child.
The forcing upon a pregnant woman the death or injury of her preborn child is a violation of a woman's rights to protect and give life to her child. Therefore, these petitioners continue to call upon the House of Commons to pass legislation which would recognize preborn children as separate victims when they are killed or injured during the commission of an offence against their mothers.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of signatures on a petition from people in Winnipeg regarding Falun Gong, which is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that consists of meditation, exercise, and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance. They are asking the House to recognize, in a public way, that we need to call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong in China.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed from October 3 consideration of the motion, of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be here this morning participating in this discussion, which is an important one for our country and for the world.
If the right words and an upbeat attitude were all it took to resolve the climate change crisis, Canada would be a world leader, but the fact is that Canada has no credibility on this file because, year after year, it has failed to take action. I will support this one small step this morning, but it will obviously not get us anywhere close to meeting our international obligations, nor does it explain why the government refused to set the limits Canada needs to fulfill its responsibilities under our international obligations.
I am very pleased to speak on this issue. This is the fundamental issue of our time. It is the issue that our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren will judge us by.
I have been in this House for 12 years, and I have seen the complete lack of leadership and abdication of responsibility by Canada that has been a disgrace internationally. I remember being in this House when I was very young at the time, 12 years ago, and there was the now Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was telling us that the Liberals had this brilliant idea to meet Kyoto objectives. They would have voluntary targets. He was saying that voluntary targets are important and that we have to work with industry and we have to be positive in Canada.
We saw where that got us. It got us 12 years of inaction, of Canada looking like the laggard it has been. It is not good enough. We need to set the hard targets and put out a vision for what a green economy is about. There has been this false dichotomy all along that somehow we have to choose the jobs versus the planet. That has been as opposed to talking about how, when we actually start to look at moving towards a green economy, we can become much more efficient. We will become a much more positive country.
In my own region, because of the push to get to clear greenhouse targets, we have the Borden mine. The greenhouse gas emissions are being completely removed because it is getting rid of diesel. It is moving to battery power. As it starts to move in that direction, it realizes that it can actually cut down its energy costs. This is a really important thing to discuss.
It is not about replacing our sources of energy only. It is about reducing our overall energy use. It does not matter what kind of energy we use, it has an impact. This country has been completely wasteful in its attitude towards energy.
What does a green vision for a nation look like? Well, I would like to think that if we are going to go $30 billion in debt under the government, that it be a green strategy that says, “We are going to start to retrofit. We are going to encourage families to make their houses more efficient. We are going to work with first nations to get them off the diesel generators.” We can do so much to lessen our overall energy inputs.
However, what I see is a government that came in and said that the Stephen Harper targets were false targets. We all know that. We know that the past government had no intention of doing anything on the climate change file. However, the government has accepted the same targets as Stephen Harper. That is not good enough.
When the environment minister talks about keeping us at the 1.5 degree or 2 degree red line, it is an absolutely bizarre conversation in this House, that we can somehow limit the damage to the planet to this level, or we can get up to that level to limit the damage to the planet. We are going to keep carrying on and carrying on. We need to move beyond these tactics and ask what we are going to do as a nation.
The one thing I note, when the government talks about ratifying the Paris agreement and working with the provinces and territories, is that it is not talking about working with the municipalities across this country, which are on the forefront of the fight against climate change. There are so many strategies at the urban levels that could move us toward meeting many of these targets, but we have to work with them. The municipalities are also the ones that are bearing the brunt of climate change, from the extreme fires to the extreme floods. They are having to plan as they start to build infrastructure on how to mitigate the effects.
It is a bubble effect, the Prime Minister saying he can do this here, and within this chamber we can make these changes. Unless we are talking to the people who are on the front lines, we are going to fail. Nowhere is that clearer than with the fact that the government does not believe it has an obligation to discuss with the first peoples of this country that it can bring in these standards, put a carbon price on, and talk about the fictitious numbers they are going to somehow reach if we all stay positive. It is in Indian country that we are at the ground zero of changes that are already happening. These are the melting ice roads, the effect in communities where people cannot afford to go out on the land because the cost of fuel is so high, where the houses are not properly built. People are living in crushing levels of poverty because they cannot pay for the fuel that is being flown in or brought in on barges. We do not have a government that has any kind of vision about moving these communities toward more sustainable greener futures.
How are we going to talk about getting to a better position as a nation if we are not talking with respect, and with our international obligations that have been laid out in UNDRIP, with the first peoples of this country? This leads us to the government's recent pushing of megaprojects: the LNG project that has been described as a carbon bomb, the Site C dam. What is it, $9 billion to flood out all that land in the Peace River? Imagine what we could do with $9 billion in British Columbia if we were not destroying indigenous lands and farmland, and we were instead putting solar in houses or getting people on geothermal. That $9 billion would go a long, long way.
However, with these federal and provincial governments, we have this love of the megaproject. Whether it is a dirty or supposedly clean energy megaproject, they love the big megaprojects. However, they do not want to do the work that is necessary, the talking with indigenous people who are being affected by these time and time again.
Our Prime Minister has an enormous mandate from the Canadian people. He has captured the positive spirit that Canadians have. Canadians want action, and that is why they gave him this unprecedented mandate. They believed that this was the person who could take us to a better place in terms of where we need to be environmentally. When he went to Paris, so many Canadians were proud. They believed our Prime Minister when he said that Canada was back. Canadians want to take these steps and are ready to take these steps. However, if it is going to amount to tens of thousands of dollars or selfie photos in Paris, and coming back and saying that Stephen Harper's plan was not so bad, we will just be a little nicer about it, that is a betrayal of the Canadian people. It is a betrayal of the larger willingness of the Canadian people to get down and do the hard work of climate change.
I come from a blue-collar riding, from agriculture, from mining. Many of our people fly out on contract work to work camps. However, every one of them tells me they are worried about what it looks like for their children. They want a government that is going to start to make some changes. It is not sufficient that we tell ordinary Canadians to turn light bulbs off at night, or that we put a carbon tax on the hydro of poor Mrs. O'Grady. We are downloading the costs to people who cannot afford to pay it. This has to be done at a national level by securing hard targets for industry. We keep talking about a market solution. The market caused the problem. It is up to government now to legislate clear hard targets so we actually get to where we need to go.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I do concur with the member's comments when he said that the electorate last year recognized the importance of the issue, and in fact, it looks to our Prime Minister today to take actions on the issue. It is really important that we recognize what we are actually doing; and what we are talking about, in good part, is a price on carbon pollution. If we listen to what Canadians want, we will find they are very supportive of that, as they are with respect to the Paris agreement.
When I look at it and listen to my New Democratic friends, I often hear that we are not doing enough, and yet, when I listen to the Conservative Party, I hear that we are doing too much.
At the end of the day, I believe there has been a coming together of leaders from different provinces and territories, indigenous people, and world leaders. They agree that something needs to be done.
This is indeed a great first step.
Would the member not agree?
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, if laziness were a virtue, the Liberals would all be in heaven, because what we are always told is, “Well, the NDP says we're not doing enough and the Conservatives say we're doing too much, so we'll just sit back and enjoy ourselves”. That is what got us into this problem.
That is what got us into the problem when the Liberal government did all its talk on Kyoto and did nothing. It said, “As long as we say nice things about the planet, the planet will suddenly get better”.
Yes, they have taken some baby steps. However the reality is not what the Democrats say; it is what the Paris accord says.
The government is making it up. It will not tell the truth. Because the Prime Minister has a Haida tattoo and says that the Great Bear Rainforest is no place to run a pipeline and then runs a pipeline through it, that is suddenly okay because he has a Haida tattoo. Well, so what? How about actually meeting the Paris accord? That is the question.
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that northern communities, often indigenous, use diesel and that the cost of living is quite high.
Does he believe, under any plan moving forward as a result of the debate we are having regarding the Paris accord and Canada's actions toward it, that these communities should be exempt from it and that the federal government should help them get off diesel and help them become more energy-sufficient communities?
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, I guess it is how we look at moving forward. The issue is that we all recognize it is not credible to have communities in isolated areas living on diesel generators. It is just not good enough.
How do we actually, then, move forward?
We could regulate it, or with government we have enormous tools to find better sources of energy. That is how we need to start thinking.
For communities to have to fly in fuel to run generators is not a credible way of running any kind of first-world nation. We could actually use the incentives of government. There are enormous geothermal, wind, solar, and other options, including biofuels, that we could look at.
If we are going to talk about a $30-billion deficit, we need to ask how we start putting in smart investments, so that these communities become more sustainable and they are not on the forefront of greenhouse emissions.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very insightful speech. He gets to the point, always.
One thing we need to keep in mind is that, in our subamendment to the motion before us, we say it is not enough just to talk to the provinces and territories; we should also be talking to indigenous leaders and the public.
What does my colleague think about that?
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her excellent work on this.
Yes, we are all in this together. If we are going to deal with the crisis of climate change, we need smart solutions—and smart solutions are happening already, on the ground. Municipalities are in the forefront. Indigenous communities have to be part of this conversation. I would think that a government that says it is having a new historic relationship would move beyond just running the pipelines through their territory with the LNG or the Site C and actually talk to the communities that are affected.
Terry Beech LiberalParliamentary Secretary for Science
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague the member for Kingston and the Islands.
It is my pleasure to rise today and speak in favour of this motion.
Over the summer, I conducted several town hall and coffee meetings in Burnaby and North Vancouver. At these meetings and on the doorstep, my constituents regularly raised their concerns with regard to the environment and what action this government is taking on climate change.
I spoke of these concerns on August 19 when I presented a report to the TMX ministerial panel in North Vancouver. I would like to read the ninth section of that report, entitled “Decision within the Context of Climate Change”, as I believe it is pertinent to today's debate:
Climate change is an immediate and significant threat to our communities and our economy.
Within the first thirty days of its mandate, the Federal Government took a leadership role in Paris with regards to tackling climate change.
Canada is providing national leadership on this issue and working with the provinces and territories to take collective action on climate change, put a price on carbon, and reduce carbon pollution.
These targets must recognize the economic cost and catastrophic impact that a greater-than-two-degree increase in average global temperature represents....
This June, Canada committed with the United States and Mexico to a North American Climate, Clean Energy and Environment partnership.
I believe it is our responsibility to create a legislative and market environment where individual consumers and businesses make climate friendly choices not because they are compelled to do so, but because it is the best economic decision. [Pricing carbon pollution] is a means to accomplish this.
Marketwide policy changes will have a more persistent and significant impact on climate change than focusing on the economic and environmental balance of individual projects.
Properly implemented, these policies will also provide greater certainty to decision makers over the long term, eliminating some of the ambiguity that communities and the private sector currently face.
There are more topics and more detail covered in the report, and anyone who is interested can read the full report at terrybeech-parl.ca.
However, I do not want to just talk about carbon pricing today, because there are many ways that we can work to reduce our carbon emissions.
One of the most significant immediate actions the international community could take to combat climate change and contribute to the goals of the Paris agreement is to amend the United Nations Montreal protocol to phase down hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. HFCs are a family of potent greenhouse gases used as replacements for ozone-depleting chemicals being phased out under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. They are greenhouse gases hundreds to thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide. HFCs are mainly used in refrigeration, air conditioning, insulating foams, and aerosol products.
Scientists estimate that globally over one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent of HFCs is emitted every single year. That is the carbon dioxide equivalent of 291 coal-fired power plants or the annual emission from 211 million passenger vehicles. This number is growing rapidly as the demand for refrigeration and air conditioning is significantly increasing in developing countries.
That is why Canada and the parties to the Montreal protocol are working this year to negotiate an amendment for a global phase-down of HFCs, a move expected to avoid emissions of more than 75 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050. This equates to up to half a degree Celsius of global warming by the end of this century. What is more, for some applications, replacing HFCs with climate-friendly refrigerants and technologies can improve energy efficiency by up to 50%, which can significantly reduce energy costs for consumers and businesses. Canada has taken a leadership role internationally in efforts to promote an ambitious HFC amendment under the Montreal protocol, notably by joining forces with Mexico and the United States in putting forward a North American proposal to include a phase-down of HFCs.
Moving away from HFCs will not only make an important contribution to combatting climate change, but it will provide companies in Canada and around the world an opportunity to share their expertise in technologies using climate-friendly alternatives, thereby promoting green growth in Canada and internationally. Indeed, some Canadian companies are already ahead of the game by leading the transition to non-HFC technologies. For instance, some Canadian supermarkets are converting their refrigeration systems to very low global warming technologies that are energy efficient and yield significant cost savings. In particular, Sobeys has converted more than 70 of its stores to be climate friendly, and it plans to extend such conversions to its 1,300 stores right across the country.
Meanwhile, major automobile manufacturers operating in Canada have started to manufacture new models with air conditioners using climate-friendly alternatives instead of HFCs.
Parties to the Montreal protocol are to conclude negotiations at their upcoming meeting from October 10 to 14 in Rwanda. In the lead-up to this meeting, Canada has been active in building support around the world for an ambitious HFC amendment. Notably, in July, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change participated in an extraordinary meeting of the parties, where the minister met with representatives of key countries, such as China, India, and Saudi Arabia, which we need to bring on board to ensure a comprehensive and effective HFC phase-down.
The minister has also co-chaired several meetings of “high ambition” countries, which notably contributed to the adoption of a New York declaration by the Coalition to Secure an Ambitious HFC Amendment.
Canada has also explicitly recognized that implementing an HFC amendment will require additional resources to assist developing nations. In that regard, Canada strongly supported the statement in this year's G7 declaration in which Canada and other G7 countries committed to providing additional support, through the Montreal protocol's multilateral fund, to developing countries for the implementation of an amendment.
On September 22, Canada joined a group of 16 industrialized countries in a declaration signalling that they stood ready to provide $27 million in additional funding to the multilateral fund as soon as 2017 if an amendment was adopted this year. We are not waiting for the adoption of a global agreement in order to take action at home. The Government of Canada plans to publish, by the end of 2016, proposed regulatory measures to implement a phase-down of HFCs in Canada.
However, Canada represents only a small share of global emissions. This is why Canada has not only been pushing for an agreement under the Montreal protocol. It has also undertaken a range of other initiatives internationally to promote action on HFCs in advance of a global phase-down. For instance, Canada is co-leading an HFC initiative under the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to reduce short-lived climate pollutants, an international partnership composed of 50 countries and more than 60 non-governmental organizations. This initiative is active in promoting alternatives to HFCs worldwide through technology conferences, demonstration projects, and case studies. This will help galvanize political support across the globe for an HFC amendment under the protocol.
In addition, Canada has been collaborating with the World Bank to promote HFC reductions in the World Bank's investment and project portfolio.
In short, Canada is undertaking continuous and targeted efforts, both internationally and domestically, to champion concrete actions on climate change; and yesterday's announcement is just the beginning of what we can do.
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Madam Speaker, I represent a largely rural riding. In a lot of cases, farmers have to get their products to market. However, seniors also have to drive great distances to get to things like medical appointments. We all know that this carbon tax will raise the price of everything, including the price of fuel. Therefore, I have a couple of questions.
I would first ask, for my friend, what I am supposed to tell these seniors who are already struggling with the high cost of hydro in Ontario and who are struggling to pay their rent. We have heat banks in Haliburton county to help those who are trying to pay their hydro bill but cannot afford to because they heat with electricity. Now those who are on oil will be using it.
Also, when looking at British Columbia's greenhouse gas emissions as of 2013, when it introduced a carbon tax, we see they are up 4.3% since the 2010 levels. How is this doing anything for the environment? Rather, it appears to be just a tax grab without income tax cuts.
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Madam Speaker, I am from the province of British Columbia, which was indeed the first province in the country to implement a revenue-neutral carbon pricing system. That system was implemented in 2008. It started at $10 a tonne and went up by $5 a tonne until it came to its current level of $30 a tonne.
I note that the hon. member talked about carbon emissions having gone up. However, that is total emissions. According to The Economist in July 2014, in the first six years of the program the per person consumption of fuels dropped by 16% in British Columbia while consumption rose by 3% throughout the rest of the country. This is a province that has had a revenue-neutral carbon pricing regime since 2008, and it just happens to be one of the fastest-growing economies in the country.
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby South, BC
Madam Speaker, in talking about climate change, of course, one of the biggest projects we have on the table here in Canada is the Kinder Morgan pipeline, a new pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby. In fact, we might call the member for Burnaby North—Seymour the MP for Kinder Morgan, because the pipeline would terminate in his riding.
I oppose this Kinder Morgan pipeline. Could the member stand up in the House and say whether or not he opposes the Kinder Morgan pipeline?
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Burnaby South for his good over the years before I was elected to this place in October 2015. The hon. member was actually my member of Parliament. Now that we are neighbours and he is the critic for science, we have many opportunities to work together.
The specific question of Kinder Morgan is a complex issue. It is an issue that I have spent three years working on, and because it is such a complex issue, I made sure to put my thoughts into a well-thought-out document. It is a 30-minute presentation that I made to the TMX panel. This 12-page report is available on my website at terrybeech-parl.ca. I would encourage anyone who would like to know my position on the Kinder Morgan pipeline to read that document.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could reflect on the statement that what we are really encouraging through this is the idea of a price on carbon pollution.
I think it is really important that we emphasize the word “pollution”, because I believe that Canadians want to see a government that is proactive in protecting our environment, and this is about dealing with carbon pollution. Could the member add a few thoughts along that line?
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Madam Speaker, as someone who is trained in development economics, putting a price on carbon is one of the best and most efficient ways forward to take true action on climate change. It not only makes sure that everyone in the country is incentivized to take such action, but also increases the timeline under which sustainable forms of energy become cost competitive with traditional fossil fuels.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the House to speak to this important subject. The Paris agreement is without a doubt a watershed moment in the global community's fight against climate change, and it is an honour to be contributing to this historic debate today.
Canadians know that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. This principle is something I heard from many of my constituents when I hosted a town hall on climate change in June of this year. There is a firm belief in my community that a strong and innovative economy is closely related to a clean environment.
In my riding of Kingston and the Islands, we see innovation happening in many ways. For example, the Engineered Nickel Catalysts for Electrochemical Clean Energy group, an international research project based out of Queen's University, is on the cutting edge when it comes to developing new clean energy technologies. St. Lawrence College, another post-secondary institution in my riding, has emerged as a leader in renewable energy and has focused strongly on applied research and innovation. I highlight these examples because it is important to emphasize that both basic and applied research will have long-term benefits for both our economy and the environment.
While amazing work is being done in my community and across the country, Canada cannot face this challenge alone. That is why my remarks today will focus on how the close relationship between the environment and the economy is clearly demonstrated through the collective actions we are taking in North America.
By ratifying this agreement Canada would be standing side by side with a number of our closest allies. In particular, I would like to recognize and congratulate two of our continental partners, the United States and Mexico, for their recent ratification of the Paris agreement. This serves as an example for the global community. I look forward to Canada's joining therm shortly, along with other nations that have ratified this historic document. In partnership with our friends, the U.S. and Mexico, we are taking important steps to meet our Paris commitments. At the same time, we are growing our economies in a clean and sustainable way.
In March of this year, the Prime Minister visited Washington, D.C. He and President Barack Obama outlined their common vision for a prosperous and sustainable North American economy. They spoke of the opportunities afforded in advancing clean growth.
In their joint statement on climate, energy, and Arctic leadership, they recognized the importance of the Paris agreement as a turning point in global efforts to combat climate change. In short, they saw this as an opportunity to anchor economic growth in clean development, and I could not agree more. They emphasized not only their shared commitment to implementing the Paris agreement but also to advancing climate action globally through other important initiatives such as hydrofluorocarbon phase-down through the Montreal Protocol.
The president and the Prime Minister also undertook to coordinate their domestic actions on climate change. For example, they made a shared commitment to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, the world's largest industrial methane source, and they reaffirmed their commitment to finalize and implement a second phase of aligned greenhouse gas emission standards for post-2018 on-road heavy-duty vehicles.
Beyond these commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, they also agreed to work closely with indigenous and northern partners to confront the challenges they face in the changing Arctic. Indigenous peoples, particularly those in the north, are often hit the hardest by the effects of climate change. They recognize, perhaps more than most, that we must take decisive action now to protect our planet.
As such, it is incredibly important to take these steps to conserve Arctic biodiversity while working to build a sustainable economy. Part of this means incorporating indigenous science and traditional knowledge in our decision-making.
I am proud that our governments will coordinate domestic climate action and take steps to build a new Arctic leadership model based on partnerships with indigenous and northern communities.
Let me now turn to one of our other continental partners, Mexico. In June, the Mexican president visited Ottawa to affirm the importance of a renewed strategic partnership with Canada, including with respect to the environment. Our countries committed to advancing a North American approach to the creation of a clean growth economy. By this, they meant that we would jointly tackle the causes and impacts of climate change and promote and develop renewable sources of energy to meet our respective challenges.
These bilateral relationships with our partners in North America are incredibly important, but equally important is finding areas where we can all work together to advance a North American approach to climate change and clean energy.
At the end of June, Canada had the honour of hosting the North American leaders' summit, which proved to be an important moment for North American environmental affairs. In the leaders' statement on North American climate, clean energy, and environmental partnership, the three countries committed to a number of important items.
First is advancing clean and secure power, including a historical goal to strive to achieve 50% clean power generation by 2025.
Second is driving down short-lived climate pollutants, including methane, black carbon, and hydrofluorocarbons. This is a critical step, as these short-lived climate pollutants are up to thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to warming. To achieve a reduction in pollution means we have to set bold and ambitious targets. For example, we have committed to reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by between 40% to 45% by 2025.
Third, we agreed to promote clean and efficient transportation through joint actions that would create jobs while reducing energy consumption, greenhouse gases, and air pollution.
Fourth, we committed to protecting nature and advancing science, including conservation and sustainable biodiversity, and to collaborating with indigenous communities and leaders to incorporate traditional knowledge into decision-making.
Fifth, we committed to showing global leadership in addressing climate change. North American leadership is also evident in our work under the International Civil Aviation Organization. Together, we are pursuing the adoption of a global market-based mechanism that aspires to enable carbon neutral growth in international civil aviation.
Furthermore, in July we made significant progress in Vienna toward an amendment under the Montreal Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs. An HFC phase-down is one of the most significant measures that the world can take to combat climate change and contribute toward the objectives of the Paris agreement.
Our three countries will work together to build on this momentum next week in Rwanda during the 28th meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol. We will lead the global community toward an ambitious amendment on HFCs.
Continental co-operation was further demonstrated last month, when the Minister of Environment and Climate Change participated in the annual Commission for Environmental Cooperation council session in Mexico. The CEC is an institution that for over 20 years has brought our countries together to work on our shared environmental challenges. This environmental agreement was Canada's first regional accord to clearly link trade policy with environmental protection, and serves as yet another example of how a healthy economy and a healthy environment must go hand in hand.
The minister and her counterparts from the U.S. and Mexico committed to build on recent regional commitments on the environment. They recognized the need to develop mid-century low-carbon development strategies, reduce short-lived climate pollutants, and phase down HFCs. Canada is now the chair of the CEC, and I am very much looking forward to seeing our country host the organization's annual meeting in Charlottetown next year.
In conclusion, this year has been a busy year for North American co-operation on climate change and the environment. The special friendships and alliances we have on our continent make a strong statement on multilateral collaboration. Going forward, we must continue to advance our shared objectives to reduce climate change while promoting clean economic growth.
As a member of the environment committee, I continually hear that the battle against climate change is taking place on many fronts. We need a comprehensive and holistic approach that includes investing in clean technologies, promoting innovation, funding basic research, expanding our protected spaces, and incorporating sustainable practices across governments.
As parliamentarians, I know we all take the issue of environmental protection seriously. The decision we make will have a profound and lasting impact on generations to come. Ratification is a big step in the right direction. That is why I am urging all of my hon. colleagues to support the motion we have before us today.
