Debates of June 1st, 2018

Federal Sustainable Development Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton has four minutes and 50 seconds left for her speech.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to resume my speech on C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

To give a brief recap, for those who may have missed my beginning remarks, the bill is about putting a framework in place for the government to ensure that all government activities keep sustainable development in mind. In fact, it will be extended to 90 departments of the government, with reporting back to Parliament.

To make sure everyone understands what sustainable development is, I reviewed the definition. The important parts of sustainable development are having goals and making sure that development “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations”.

I then went into a review of what the government's goals are. We have heard repeatedly that the environment and the economy go hand in hand and that the government has an agenda to address climate change. We were able to review the Auditor General's comments on how that is going. The Auditor General, unfortunately, did not have very good things to say about progress on climate change under the current government. The Auditor General concluded that Environment and Climate Change Canada's measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions contained in the framework had yet to be implemented. Here we are two-thirds of the way through their mandate, and the Liberals have not even implemented that.

The Auditor General's report also said that there has been no progress. It concluded that Environment and Climate Change Canada “did not provide adequate leadership to advance the federal government's adaptation to climate change impacts.”

That is on top of the fact that we cannot get a straight answer from the minister with respect to the greenhouse gas emissions reductions her plan, which we have not seen, and it does not look like the Auditor General has either, will make. Therefore, that is not going very well.

In terms of the economy, $80 billion has left the energy sector, and about 100,000 energy sector jobs have been sacrificed. We also see the forestry industry impacted by the government's lack of action on softwood lumber. Of course, now we have the steel and aluminum tariffs, the elimination of the private investment of Kinder Morgan, and the cancelling of multiple projects. There is concern, as well, about the economy.

I then went on to briefly detail the debt the government is racking up with its out-of-control spending. I really think that goes against the principle of sustainable development, which says that we are going to meet “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations”. This debt is definitely going to be paid for by future generations, and I think the government needs to get that under control.

That said, I have many helpful suggestions on what the government ought to be doing with respect to climate change in the world. Canada, of course, has less than 2% of the world's carbon footprint. In terms of what we can do, we actually have a lot of technology to reduce our carbon footprint, such as carbon sequestration and some of the other green technology we have. We really should be leveraging these technologies to other countries in the world, such as China, India, Europe, and the United States, which make up about 60% of the carbon footprint.

I then went on to talk about some things we had better prepare for, because we have seen a lot of flooding, definite changes in the permafrost, and forest fires that are larger than ever. The government needs to have a contingency plan on how it is going to address that.

Comparing the record of the current government to the previous Conservative government, we reduced emissions, reduced taxes, and grew the economy at the same time. I think we have shown that we can do it successfully. Therefore, I would encourage the government to move along on that.

On water, which is where I was when we paused, the Great Lakes are being remediated and need some of the $80 million that has been allocated to pay attention to that.

That said, I am pleased that the committee's report was unanimous. I am pleased that the amendments that were brought were thoughtful, and we will be supporting Bill C-57.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the constituents in Guelph are really excited about the developments in Sarnia. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has been telling us about Suncor's St. Clair ethanol plant and the opportunities it brings farmers for carbon credits under the Government of Ontario's carbon credit program. The member mentioned Bio-Industrial Park Sarnia. Guelph has a net-zero water treatment plant and is using some of the technologies Sarnia is using.

I am excited to see the clean-tech opportunities and other opportunities we can share through Bill C-57 in terms of greening our government operations. It might help us achieve the climate change goals we have together. The benefit for our communities, for our province, and for our country is something we can share between Guelph and Sarnia.

Could the hon. member talk about the great clean-tech developments in Sarnia and how Bill C-57 might enhance the development of these types of solutions?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Guelph is right on the money in terms of the green and clean tech jobs that were created.

Sarnia—Lambton is a hub for the bioeconomy and renewable technology. It has one of the largest solar farms in North America. It has wind power. The Lambton College research department is devoted to interesting new technology, such as vortex, which takes seawater and creates power. It has a number of sustainable smart houses and technology that can be leveraged.

Canada is on the leading edge of this in both Guelph and Sarnia. There are things we can do within the country, but even more importantly, the real opportunity for us is to leverage this to the world. Our own footprint is so small that eliminating the whole thing would not fix climate change in any way, but we could do a lot by leveraging this kind of clean tech to the countries I mentioned. If we can get our oil to the coast and get it out to China, India, Korea, and some of the developing nations that are currently building 453 coal plants, that would go a long way, as well, in addressing the issue.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and her interventions.

Unfortunately, for the past two and a half years, we have seen the same thing, the same behaviour, over and over again from the Liberal government. Simply put, they say one thing and do another. We saw that with electoral reform. We saw that with the fight against tax havens, when they signed new agreements with new tax havens. We saw that with the promise to end subsidies for oil companies, when the government has just spent at least $4.5 billion for what is probably the largest subsidy given to an oil company in the history of Canada. We also saw that with plenty of other issues.

On the subject of sustainable development, I would like to know whether my colleague is surprised to see that everyone agrees that this government will not meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. The Commissioner of the Environment is extremely clear on the fact that this government is not on track to meet the sustainable development goals set by the UN. In fact, Environment Canada has no targets and no follow-up process for achieving those goals.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Yes, I agree that this government is all talk and no action. As my colleague just said, the problem is that there is no plan in place. I do not think the government will meet its targets.

I do not think the Liberals are going to achieve their targets. I do not think they have concrete plans. They certainly are not being open and transparent about what those plans are, the emissions reductions we are going to have, and how they are going to accomplish the commitments they have made to the world, so I am in agreement.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about targets, emissions, and pollution in general in her presentation. When she looks ahead, what does she see happening to our economy, our competitiveness, our business community, our manufacturers, and our chemical industry? What will that look like when the government does not have a plan? How does it make investments? How does it react? How do the Liberals plan for the future when no leadership is being shown by the government?

In regard to the future of a company here in Canada, without a plan, and not being competitive, why would that company invest in Canada? Why would it stay here?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member asked a question that strikes right to the heart of the issue. The Liberal government has created an uncertain climate for business. It has a new, long environmental approval process that is subject to the whims of the minister. That will create huge uncertainty. The government has created an uncompetitive business environment by not reacting to the lowering of taxes by the United States and to it not having a carbon tax anywhere but California.

Once again, the Liberals have created an uncompetitive environment. They have increased the burden on small businesses in Canada. The carbon tax that will come into place at multiple, increasing levels will just continue to increase the pressure.

Kinder Morgan is the last in a long line of signs to the government that private investment is not feeling secure in Canada. This continued uncertainty means that it will take people a long time before they return and start investing in our country.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the hypocrisy of increasing oil production while trying to meet our Paris Agreement targets for greenhouse gas reductions.

Does she think that purchasing a 65-year-old pipeline for $4.5 billion was a good investment, especially considering that the planned expansion project will likely cost another $7 billion and that it is taxpayers who will have to assume the risks?

Is this not an admission of failure on all fronts on the part of the Liberal government?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we need to keep in mind that this is a global problem. When we look at the Canadian oil industry, we know that we are the most environmentally savvy and the most sustainable, in terms of development, in the world. If we are going to try to truly help the world, starting in our own country to meet our targets, one of the things we could do is get off Venezuelan and Saudi Arabian oil. There is a huge credit there.

I have already talked about how replacing oil in other countries will stop them from building these 453 coal plants that are under construction. That is a huge thing relative to the target agreements we have made as Canadians. There is a lot we could do with leveraging.

Within our own country, there is still a lot we can do. However, we see that the carbon tax the Liberals would be implementing would not really influence behaviour. B.C. has had a carbon tax for years, and it has not seen emissions reductions. The Ontario program has exempted most of the large emitters from the program. This is just cash in the government's pockets, and it would doing nothing for the planet. I think there are solutions we can bring that really would address the problem.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, it is always wonderful to hear my colleague speak. However, I wonder if we could just go a little broader. The sustainable development goals are comprehensive and integrated. There are 17 goals and 169 targets. We have looked at our Canada child benefit, which helps reduce poverty; our budget, which looks at gender; our oceans protection plan, which looks at another goal, which is life underwater.

Would the member not agree that our government is taking some pretty significant steps to ensure that we meet the 17 goals and 169 targets?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree that when there are things that are being measured, things will improve. The problem is that the government is not being open and transparent with Canadians about what the plan is, what the targets are, and what it is trying to achieve. How are we expected to know whether it is good or not, when we really see nothing going on? The Auditor General said that in her report.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-57, which amends the Federal Sustainability Act. This is a very important issue, which I will get to in a little bit.

I want to start by saying that it is unfortunate and disgusting that we are once again under a gag order as we debate issues that are so very important not only to us as a society, but also to the future of our planet. Once again, the government is limiting the amount of time we have for debate. It is preventing parliamentarians from debating and improving this bill, to ensure that we have a strong plan for sustainable development. the Liberals are once again breaking a clear promise they made during the election campaign. They are limiting debate times, imposing a gag order on members of Parliament, and not giving us enough time to have a serious debate. Today is Friday, and this is the fifth time this week alone that the Liberals have moved a time allocation motion. For those who are not familiar with the jargon, a time allocation motion means that the government is imposing a gag order a limiting the amount of time for debate.

I think that topics like sustainable development, the United Nations goals, and global warming should be taken seriously by the Liberal government. It should give us enough time to have a thorough, honest debate on this bill, so that we can address all of the details.

It is so important that I am personally convinced, and many of my colleagues here share my opinion, that the environmental issues, the protection of biodiversity, and the fight against climate change are truly the challenge of our generation.

Our children and grandchildren will judge us on our ability to deal with these challenges, our ability to ensure that we maintain a healthy environment, and our ability to prevent global temperatures from increasing by more than 2%, since that could have catastrophic consequences. I do not say that lightly. It has been scientifically proven that the earth's temperature is rising. It has also been proven that the actions of human societies, including our production and consumption activities, are mainly responsible for global warming. Our actions and our decisions are causing global warming and there are many consequences to that, including what is known as extreme weather. In some places, it is much hotter than it used to be, while in others it is much colder. On average, it is much hotter, and there has been an increase in the number and intensity of so-called natural disasters. That means there have been more floods, droughts, forest fires, and hurricanes, and those hurricanes are stronger and cause more damage. We have already seen this sort of thing in Canada. It has been documented and there are reports on the subject. Extreme weather and natural disasters are costing us more and more.

We often hear about cost, about putting a price on pollution and the cost of making greener, more environmentally responsible choices. However, I want to make it clear that there is also a cost to doing nothing and sitting on our hands while disasters break out all around us. This is not just a financial or economic issue, it is a human issue.

I would remind everyone here that former U.S. vice-president Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental advocacy and actions. Why did the Nobel committee decide to award a Nobel Peace Peace to someone who works on environmental and sustainable development issues? There does not seem to be a link, but in fact, there is one. In addition to extreme weather, we are now going to start seeing climate migrants. Mr. Gore was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize because it is a well-known fact that drastically higher temperatures in certain regions, deforestation, and lack of access to water will cause population displacement around the globe and turn millions of people into climate migrants.

Environmental migration can lead to conflict, even armed conflict. That is why the folks at the Nobel committee decided to recognize Al Gore on his work a number of years ago and issued a statement saying that preventing global warming might get us just a bit closer to world peace.

Global warming also has an impact on our ecosystems here. One of our colleagues from northern Canada, the author of Bill C-262, noted that Quebec's far north now has species of birds and insects that it did not have before and that can trigger dangerous changes in the balance of certain ecosystems. Even in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, where there are not that many ecosystems, we were forced to cut down dozens of trees because of the ash borer, an insect that did not previously exist back home. Climate change has caused the ash borer to migrate north and now it is attacking the trees.

I was talking to a winemaker in the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé recently. He says climate change could affect wine production in Quebec because of a vine-destroying insect called phylloxera native to France and Europe. Phylloxera cannot survive our winters, but that could change as our winters warm and we get periods of milder weather. It may begin to attack our vines. Periods of milder weather have other significant impacts, too. For example, if there is a major thaw in January, the vines think spring has come and start to bud, then they freeze and die for the rest of the season.

I wanted to share those details with the House, but I will now turn to a situation happening a long way from home. This morning on Radio-Canada, I had a chance to listen to an interview with documentary filmmaker Matthieu Rytz, who directed a documentary called Anote's Ark. Anote is the leader of a small nation, a unique population living on Kiribati, an atoll in the middle of the Pacific.

Like many other Pacific atolls, their island is only about a metre above sea level, and sea level is already rising. If we do not meet our Paris Agreement targets and slow down global warming, the glaciers at the North and South poles will melt, causing the sea level to rise everywhere. For the people of Kiribati, it is almost too late already.

There are other countries where we hope to avert disasters. I am thinking in particular of Bangladesh, which is already below sea level, but which may have more resources to protect its coastline. The Netherlands and Holland already have an entire infrastructure for that, but the people of Kiribati do not. It is most unfortunate.

The documentary is called Anote's Ark because all these people plan on leaving. They are looking for somewhere else to live. They may move to Fiji, for example. They are already in negotiations to relocate to other countries. It is so tragic. Their entire way of life will disappear. It could also lead to complications and tension.

The climate migrants I mentioned earlier are a clear and typical example of the fact that this phenomenon will grow. If they are moved to another country, will a state be created within the host country, or will they simply be assimilated into the existing population? These are serious issues. What can we do to prevent this cultural diversity from disappearing? Biological diversity is important, but so is cultural diversity. We see the type of problems that this will cause.

Before I go into the specifics of the bill, I want to point out that the Liberal government promised to put an end to oil subsidies. After two and a half years in power, it has done absolutely nothing about this. On the contrary, I believe it has just handed out the largest oil subsidy in Canada's history by writing a $4.5-billion cheque to a U.S. company to purchase a 65-year-old pipeline that is leaking, by the way.

However, Canada pledged to participate in an accountability process adopted by the G7 and G20 to track each country's progress in reducing and gradually phasing out oil subsidies. We have received an invitation. We have already been invited to pair up with Argentina to examine each other's actions and decisions to see if we are serious and making progress. What is absolutely incomprehensible is quite simply that the Liberal government did not even respond to Argentina's invitation. Argentina is still waiting for Canada to say that it wants to partner up. As they say in Argentina, it takes two to tango, but Canada is refusing to get on the dance floor.

More specifically, we have a government that, once again, is saying one thing but doing the opposite. The oil subsidies are a blatant example. It is sad. I would like to quote a report from the environment commissioner that clearly states that this government is not going in the right direction and that it will likely fall well short of meeting the weak targets it has set, where it even set any, that is. That is another problem. It is unfortunate that, despite the Liberals' campaign promises, they set exactly the same greenhouse gas reduction targets as the previous government and kept the very same game plan, and yet it seems Canada will not even meet those targets.

I would like to quote the environment commissioner's report directly. It reads:

On the basis of current federal [and] provincial...policies and actions, Canada is not expected to meet its 2020 target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Meeting Canada’s 2030 target will require substantial effort and actions beyond those currently planned or in place.

It seems pretty clear to me that we are going to miss the boat. We are going to miss the boat on what is probably the greatest challenge of this Parliament, this government, at a time when it should be leading the way and making tough decisions. It is not only the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development who is saying so. The United Nations and the OECD share the same concerns and have said that Canada will not reach its targets for 2020 or 2030. There is nothing to be proud of or to brag about here. Giving great speeches in Germany, in New York, and at the UN is all well and good, but if the government is not willing to walk the talk, there is no point. It is nothing but hot air, nothing but words, as Dalida would have said.

As for the Federal Sustainable Development Act specifically and the fact that Canada has officially committed to achieving the United Nations' 17 sustainable development goals, once again, a report released in April by the Commissioner on Environment and Sustainable Development sounded the alarm that we are not on track to achieve them. One of the federal government's major commitments to the UN is likely to remain mere empty rhetoric if Ottawa does not take meaningful action to honour those commitments.

At a news conference in April, Julie Gelfand said that it is always worrisome when a government says that it will do something and does not do it. In one of her three annual reports, she noted that Canada is not on track to meet the 17 sustainable development goals it has promised to implement on two separate occasions since 2015. The Prime Minister himself reiterated this promise when he appeared before the UN General Assembly in September 2017.

However, five departments responsible for implementing these goals by 2030 still have no targets and no system for monitoring progress. This is absolutely ridiculous. Ms. Gelfand also noted that there is no framework for coordinating these efforts at Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Global Affairs Canada, Status of Women Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada. It is unreal.

We are not on track to meet the goals and will not fulfill our international commitments, and the departments are so inept that they cannot establish targets or tracking systems themselves. Furthermore, one of these departments is the Department of the Environment. What a terrible message. What a joke. This is why the government's credibility on the environment leaves a lot to be desired, in spite of all their fine words.

Bill C-57 makes a few small changes, but it is still not enough. We are missing the boat. I will come back to this if I have any time left, but this bill is basically a copy of Bill C-474, which was introduced by Liberal Party member John Godfrey and passed in 2008. The overall framework of the bill before us is extremely weak. What I am about to say may seem a bit technical, but rather than give the government an incentive to achieve a series of sustainable development targets based on certain principles, Bill C-57 merely sets out a legal framework for developing a strategy.

That means that, once again, a framework will be created, consultations will be held, and everyone will talk about big ideas for this strategy. In the meantime, however, the concept of setting targets and figuring out how to meet them has fallen by the wayside even though those steps are key if we want to take this seriously and make things happen. Instead, they are building castles in the air, ignoring the targets, and pretending what they are doing will be good enough. We think this is a missed opportunity that could have been used to achieve so much more.

Initially, the bill introduced and passed in 2008 proposed establishing an independent commissioner position to act as an environmental auditor general, which we currently do not have. There is no one who is entirely independent to oversee, as an auditor general does, what the government is doing on the environment. Regrettably, instead of creating that position, the bill aims simply to create a sustainable development office at Environment and Climate Change Canada, but without any real plan. Thus, the person responsible for monitoring progress on achieving the objectives will be part of the same organization that should already be tracking it anyway. I would not put a fox in charge of the henhouse. This is laughable.

Basically, we see a few steps in the right direction, but we think it is unfortunate that the Liberals did not act on all the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, despite what the minister said earlier today.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I thoroughly enjoyed the first part of it, until he started criticizing us. It was very good and I really appreciated it. I appreciated the fact that he emphasized that we are getting wetter, warmer, wilder weather and his emphasis on climate migrants in particular. We often talk about the conflict and the situation that is created, but we sometimes forget climate migrants, so I appreciate that.

We know that the cost, between 1983 and 2005, to Canadians was $373 million. It is now over $1 billion between 2005 and 2015. Again, as the member said, it is not just the financial cost, but the cost in terms of human lives. Climate change affects the poorest and most vulnerable, often women and children. That is why we have a feminist international assistance policy that we invested $2 billion in to ensure that we are focusing on that internationally.

I want to focus on some of the things we did in our 2018 budget. There is $1.3 billion for biodiversity and conservation, addressing target no. 15 of the sustainable development goals. There is also target no. 14, which is addressed by the oceans protection plan, and targets no. 1 and 2 concerning poverty and hunger, which are addressed by the Canada child benefit, and I could go on. I am wondering if my hon. colleague would not agree that we have taken steps toward ensuring that we meet our sustainable development targets.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments. I appreciate the work that she does and the public positions she has taken.

We agree that the federal government must put a price on pollution, on carbon. The majority of provinces already do so. In fact, 75% of Canadians already live in a province that has a carbon tax, or carbon exchange.

However, we think that the current government could do more, which is why we are criticizing it, especially since we may not meet our 2030 and 2050 targets. There are, indeed, some measures that sometimes take us in the right direction, but the general consensus right now is that these ones fall short.

I must also point out the flagrant contradiction between the desire to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and meet the targets set out in the Paris Agreement, with the purchase of a pipeline that transports a highly polluting source of energy that will triple the production of these emissions. We are talking about the equivalent of three million more cars on the road every year. We think this is inconsistent with a plan to reduce greenhouse gases.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Québec debout, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie on his speech.

Sustainable development is not an easy thing to achieve in our oil-driven country. Sustainable development means linking economic growth to environmental considerations.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the Liberals' vision of sustainable development, which I think the Prime Minister has made clear. He said that to help the environment, the Liberals plan to build more pipelines and further develop the oil sands, generating revenue that they will use to set environmental standards and fight climate change.

Does my colleague think this reasoning holds water?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his comments and question. I also want to thank him for his great work overall.

He is absolutely correct about the Liberals' reasoning being contradictory. It is as if the government is telling us that we need to turn right to go left. It makes no sense. Being consistent and coherent allows us to do what needs to be done to move in a logical direction.

Buying Kinder Morgan's project is equivalent to putting about three million more cars on the road. It is going to cost us $4.5 billion to buy a leaky old pipe, and that price does not include the expansion, which Kinder Morgan estimates will cost about $7.4 billion more. This is a project with a $12-billion or $13-billion price tag that all Canadians will have to pay for.

We cannot help but wonder how many jobs could have been created in the renewable energy sector. Instead of expanding a pipe to carry an energy source that causes massive amounts of pollution, we could have built solar panels or wind turbines, or we could have invested in geothermal energy, tidal power, and other forms of hydroelectricity. There are plenty of things we could be doing, and other countries have shown us the way. Sadly, Canada has not yet followed their lead.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who always conjures up images to illustrate the contradictions and absurdity of the Liberals' decisions on climate change.

The Minister of Environment rose today to say that Bill C-57 would establish measurable plans, improved accountability, ambitious targets, and annual progress reports. However, reports prepared by the Commissioner of the Environment clearly indicate that five departments, including the Department of the Environment, have no plan and no system for monitoring progress.

How can the minister look herself in the mirror and rise in the House to speak about climate change and sustainable development when her own department has no plan and no reporting system? That is an insult to future generations, which will have to live with the consequences of this pollution and the lack of a plan. It has already been said that inaction on climate change costs millions of dollars.

Could my colleague perhaps explain what we should do, as a G7 country, to elevate the debate on climate change?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for her concerns and her extremely relevant question.

We have a Liberal government that contradicts itself and unfortunately does not do what it says it will. When the time comes to choose between profits and the environment, strangely enough, profits always win out.

What needs to happen? We need to take immediate action. Experts all agree that an energy transition will not happen within a single term or within two years. It will take a whole generation. Time is of the essence. We are running out of time to stop global warming from becoming irreversible and triggering negative consequences for the entire planet.

Last week, I attended a summit in Montreal on a fair energy transition organized by unions and environmental groups. Also in attendance were the Conseil du patronat du Québec, business people, and major investment companies, including the Fonds de solidarité FTQ, Fondaction, the Mouvement Desjardins, and the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec.

Everyone around the table was there to discuss measures for engaging in an energy transition. Training the workforce was a dominant topic of discussion. It is one thing to say that we can do something else and use renewable energy, but we also have to train workers and show them that they will have good, clean, environmentally friendly jobs.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, Quebec has been a leader in Canada in terms of the carbon economy and in trading carbon credits with California. The Province of Alberta has set up a different system in which it is capping emissions. The pipeline that we have been discussing falls within those caps, and also within Canada's long-term plan to meet its climate change targets.

Last night on social media, a constituent of mine was talking about the elimination of subsidies to the oil and gas industry. The nrcan.gc.ca website, under “Clean Energy”, spells out the reduction in subsidies by 2025, as well as the clean energy targets by 2030, when 90% of Canada's energy will be from sustainable energy. That website shows accountability for our government. Has the hon. member had a chance to look at that website?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I am familiar with that program and that website. However, the Liberal government promised to put an end to oil subsidies during its term. It plans to do that in 2025. We do not know if the Liberals will still be in power by then. Probably not, so that is not much of a commitment.

If this government were serious, it would respond to Argentina's invitation for mutual accountability.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to split my time with my colleague, the member for Ottawa South.

I am proud today to speak to Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which is a really important step toward realizing this government's vision that Canada become one of the greenest countries in the world and that the quality of life of Canadians across the country continue to improve.

In our second report, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development worked really hard across the aisle, all parties together, to produce a report entitled “Federal Sustainability for Future Generations”. It was made clear in the report that reforms needed to be made to this law, and that is what Bill C-57 is all about.

As I am going to explain, the amendments in the bill, in particular to the purpose of the act, clearly show that sustainable development and environment are at the forefront of our thinking and our government's decision-making as we move forward.

First, I would like to acknowledge the considerable efforts of my colleagues on that committee, Liberal, Conservative, and NDP. The efforts were really collegial. It was my first experience working on a committee project and it was a very positive one.

I would also like to thank the witnesses who came before the committee, many of whom had deep expertise in this area and had committed their lives to the issue of sustainable development, both domestically and internationally. Ultimately what they helped us achieve was a unanimous report that provided insight and recommendations that were instrumental in helping shape the amendments that we now see in Bill C-57.

I want to acknowledge in particular the contributions of the hon. John Godfrey, who is now special advisor to the Ontario government on climate change. It was John Godfrey who brought forward the original private member's bill that became the Federal Sustainable Development Act during a minority government and established the foundation for federal sustainable development strategies that are brought together by each department.

I want to start by saying that this is about shifting toward a government culture that is reflective of the transparency and accountability that Canadians have come to expect of their governments.

In terms of the strategy that has been developed for 2016-19, there have been improvements every single time a strategy has been brought forward; but with this one in particular, it has become a lot better. It has set the government on a path that it will follow for the next three years with a vision for sustainability, not just across Canada, one that is more ambitious and more aspirational than past strategies, but also with more specific targets. It incorporates more social and economic dimensions and includes a wider range of departments and agencies.

That is one of the reasons we have had so much more public engagement for the 2016-19 strategy, which we consulted about for several months. There were over 540 comments delivered to the government on it.

Bill C-57 sets the stage for the future strategies that will be brought forward by different departments and agencies and crown corporations. It is going to focus on advancing not just environmental matters, but also broader sustainable development reporting. It is going to strengthen accountability by requiring that federal organizations report annually to parliamentary committees on their sustainable development progress, which means they are going to be scrutinized publicly. That is a very good thing. It is going to let people know what their government is doing, what departments are doing to implement sustainable development, by building on a whole-of-government approach, department by department, and will enable the measurement of government's performance with specific metrics.

Bill C-57 contains a number of new provisions that will support accountability and transparency. One of those is the principle of results and delivery, something that departments and agencies will have to take into account as they develop their own strategies, not just what they are aspiring to do, but also what are they actually going to be able to deliver. The targets they are setting will have to be measurable. They will have to be time balanced.

We are seeing a tightening of the screws around federal sustainable development strategies, and that is only a good thing.

When an explicit role is identified in Bill C-57 for Treasury Board in establishing policies and issuing directives in relation to the impact of government operations on sustainable development, that is a positive development. I say this because many of my constituents in the Pontiac will know that every department has its own specific challenges. Every department has its own specific operations and policy issues that they need to address.

The civil servants in my riding tell me regularly that they would like to have the opportunity to render their own departments' actions more sustainable. They know pathways, but they need the mechanisms to help get them there. They need a tougher, stronger law to make that happen. Bill C-57 would provide that. I am very confident that the hard-working civil servants in the Outaouais, in the national capital region, will be very pleased to see they will also be able to track the performance of their department, their crown corporation, the agency for which they work, as they work toward more sustainable operations.

I said that different departments and agencies would be added to the ambit of this legislation. Right now 26 departments are participating and are named in the act. That will be increased to include contributions from 90 departments and agencies, including organizations with significant environmental footprints, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada Post, etc.

We are talking about legislation that will bring about a whole-of-government approach to achieving sustainability. That is a significant piece of our puzzle as a country. The federal government represents hundreds of thousands of employees. It represents so many dollars spent in products bought and in real estate. It is important for the entities that constitute the Government of Canada to be driving economic progress toward sustainability.

I also want to speak about the provisions and the purpose of the act around Canada's domestic and international obligations related to sustainable development. It has been raised in the House that the 2030 agenda from the UN, the sustainable development goals and our Paris agreement, are not included in the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

International obligations are acknowledged in the revised purpose set out in Bill C-57. This purpose reflects the government's commitment to consider current and future international sustainability obligations in the strategies that are developed. Future federal sustainable development strategies will reflect international obligations.

I would like to speak to concrete examples of activities that the government has undertaken to demonstrate how we take our international and domestic priorities seriously, in particular the voluntary national review on the 2030 agenda and our report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

Last year I had the privilege of going to New York and delivering Canada's statement before the United Nations at the high-level political conference on sustainable development goals. That was truly a special moment and an honour for me. This year our government will be back there. I expect it will be one of our ministers who delivers Canada's very first voluntary national review, reporting back on our sustainable development goals and our achievements to date, our accomplishments, but also recognizing areas where more work is needed, whether in relation to health, gender, or consultation with indigenous peoples.

We can always do better, and better is definitely always possible in our country. We know that.

Bill C-57 would amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act in a very positive way. I am looking forward to discussing it with my colleagues on the other side.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier the member for Whitby mentioned that the government had specific metrics. It would be tracking targets to see how it was doing on sustainable development. Could you elaborate on some of the specifics of what those might be?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sure he will, but through me.

The hon. member for Pontiac.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, the issue of metrics and concrete targets is an important question. It will depend department by department and issue by issue. I would expect emissions targets will be established. I certainly hope departments will evaluate the emissions associated with all their activities. However, there are a range of issues as well, such procurement and toxins. Every department has a different portfolio with respect to a series of environmental factors.

However, it is not just about the environment. The amendments to the Federal Sustainable Development Act would enable a more comprehensive and holistic understanding of what departments would need to do to render their activities more sustainable. Whether in relation to gender or economic development, a whole suite of things will have to be looked at. It comes down to the department-by-department analysis.