House of Commons Hansard #418 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was plan.

Topics

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #1317

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from May 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-266, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, May 15, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-266 under private members' business.

The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense?

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #1318

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Etobicoke Centre had the floor on a point of order, as you will recall. When a member stands and asks for unanimous consent or indicates that there have been discussions among the parties, in every situation I have witnessed, it has always been the case that the member is at least afforded the opportunity to express what he or she wants to get unanimous consent for—

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The hon. parliamentary secretary should know this is not the first time that a Speaker, when hearing noes during a request for unanimous consent, has not—

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

It is. It is not in—

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Order. The hon. government House leader will come to order.

The parliamentary secretary should check the record to see that in fact it is the case, as I have said, that Speakers in the past, when they heard noes and it was clear that there was not unanimous consent, did not hear the rest of the motion.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 16 minutes.

The hon. opposition House leader has the usual Thursday question. Of course, I thank members for their assistance.

Business of the HousePrivate Members' Business

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by reaffirming and thanking you. I know there have been times when other members were stopped when they were trying to ask for unanimous consent, as you earlier indicated, so I concur and I thank you very much for that.

I would like to ask the government House leader if she could let us know what is going to be happening for the rest of this week in the House and after we return from the May long weekend constituency week.

Business of the HousePrivate Members' Business

3:30 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will resume debate on government Motion No. 29, the national climate emergency. Hopefully the Conservatives will find a way to support the environment.

Tomorrow we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C-98 concerning the Canada Border Services Agency.

Next week, we will be in our ridings working with our constituents.

When we come back, priority will be given to bills coming back from committee and those that have been returned to us by the Senate.

I wish all members a good week in their ridings. I know that we will continue to work for Canadians. We, on this side of the House, will continue to represent their interests.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

The EnvironmentGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mississauga—Erin Mills.

Now more than ever, communities need support to adapt to the extreme weather events associated with climate change. The science is clear and troubling. A recent scientific study published by Environment and Climate Change Canada noted that our country's climate is warming twice as fast as the global average. This alarming development poses serious threats to the well-being of all Canadians.

Flooding, forest fires and storms are becoming more frequent and more intense. Across the country, we are seeing the devastating consequences of climate-related disasters for Canadians. Over the past few weeks, communities in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick have been hard hit by historic floods.

We have seen communities in British Columbia devastated by wildfires. We are no longer just talking about preventing climate change; we need to adapt to this stark reality urgently.

These disasters respect no borders. They threaten the health and safety of all Canadians. They traumatize families and damage entire communities when they lose their essential services and see their economies disrupted.

It costs a lot of money and takes time to repair damaged infrastructure. That is why our government is taking measures under the investing in Canada plan by earmarking $180 billion for public infrastructure renewal across the country.

First, we are investing in resilient infrastructure that helps communities withstand damage from extreme weather events. The goal is to limit the costs of repairing damaged infrastructure and help communities recover faster. Through the $2-billion disaster adaptation and mitigation fund, our government is supporting large-scale infrastructure projects that improve the resilience of communities in responding to natural disasters.

That funding is also used for wetland restoration, fire breaks, dikes and booms that can help communities affected by climate disasters recover more quickly.

To date, 26 projects have been announced under the fund. These projects include upgrades to 60 kilometres of dikes and flood water control structures along the western shores of Nova Scotia's Bay of Fundy. The investment will reduce flooding risk and the damage it can cause for tens of thousands of residents.

Another project is a stormwater management system in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. This investment will protect the drinking water supply of the 20,000 residents living in two Dene communities.

Another project provides upgrades to the dikes and pumping stations in the coastal city of Richmond, B.C., to help protect its residents against the impacts of severe storms and rising sea levels.

Another is a new shoreline protection project in Hamilton, Ontario, to improve resilience and reduce the flooding risks along the shores of Lake Ontario.

Yet another is the construction of dry ponds in Edmonton. This investment will reduce stormwater overflows on city streets during rainfall, which means the number of Edmonton residents who go without essential services during floods will be reduced.

Our government has also introduced a new assessment, called the “climate lens”. This assessment applies to select funding programs under the investing in Canada plan.

It encourages recipients to design infrastructure that will reduce carbon pollution and withstand extreme weather events related to climate change.

The climate lens is consistent with the objectives of the pan-Canadian framework for clean growth and climate change.

This framework seeks to meet our emissions reduction targets, transition to a low-carbon economy and build resilience to a changing climate.

Our government, in partnership with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, supports cities and towns across the country as they develop the skills, capacity and solutions to respond to climate change. For example, the $75-million municipalities for climate innovation program provides training and resources to help Canadian municipalities adapt to the impacts of climate change and reduce greenhouse emissions.

In addition, the green municipal fund supports initiatives that advance innovative solutions to environmental challenges. These projects improve air, water and land quality; reduce greenhouse emissions; and generate economic and social benefits for local communities.

Under the investing in Canada plan, our government also invested $27 billion in green infrastructure, which is contributing to making communities healthier and more resilient to climate change.

For example, investments in natural infrastructure, such as healthy watersheds, reduce the risk of flooding during heavy rains. The residents of Cornwall, Prince Edward Island, are benefiting from a cleaner, healthier community following federally funded upgrades to its wastewater system. These improvements mean that raw sewage is no longer discharged into local waterways. In addition, the construction of a new backup power supply for the lift station means wastewater will continue to be treated even during power outages.

To date, nearly 2,900 projects have been approved to support more natural infrastructure and improved water treatment systems in communities across the country. It is because of these investments that more than 80 long-term drinking water advisories have been lifted on public systems on first nations reserves.

That is how investing in green infrastructure improves the quality of life of Canadians and leads to healthier infrastructure that is more resilient to climate change.

While extreme weather events associated with climate change are on the rise, we have seen how Canadians come together in a crisis. Their courage, tenacity, and generosity have helped entire communities to carry on.

When it counts the most, Canadians pitch in and help each other in any way we can, with food, water, sandbags, shelter, and anything else our neighbours need to stay safe and rebuild their lives. However, we can no longer stand by and wait to react only when disaster is upon us. We need to do more to strengthen our communities against the rising threat of climate-related disasters. Our government is responding by investing in public infrastructure that protects Canadians before disaster strikes.

All Canadians deserve resilient infrastructure to help them adapt to the frequent and growing effects of climate change. That is why I find it troubling that the amendment proposed by the official opposition eliminates any mention of the climate emergency we are all facing. What is more, it makes no mention of the Paris Agreement, which leads me to believe that, just as it was when Mr. Harper was prime minister, their so-called plan is to withdraw Canada from the Paris Agreement.

If there is one thing our country cannot afford, it is another government that denies the urgency for action.

The EnvironmentGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to talk about the environment. Today I am honoured to talk about the climate emergency.

Recently, students in my riding have participated in marches because they want the Liberal government to take meaningful action against climate change. One thing that is very hard to understand about the Liberal government's approach is the fact that it adopted Stephen Harper's unambitious climate change target of a 30% reduction by 2030. That will not enable us to meet the Paris targets.

What does my colleague have to say about that? Does she believe Canada will not achieve the greenhouse gas reduction targets set out in the Paris Agreement? The member voted against our motion, so I do not think she will meet the targets. The government's climate emergency declaration is therefore worthless and meaningless.

The EnvironmentGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic to have to respond because, in the end, our intentions are the same. All of us in the NDP and the Liberal Party want to fight climate change.

With respect to emissions, there was a slight increase in 2016-17 when the oil industry in Fort McMurray resumed production after the wildfire. However, we have implemented a set of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It takes more than a year or two for the results of these measures to materialize.

We are constantly making investments in public transit and green infrastructure. We are helping several industries to change and transition to the green economy. Our budget includes tax credits for Canadians who invest in electric cars and many other investments and measures, as my colleague from Louis-Hébert mentioned earlier.

It is difficult to assess all the elements of our plan and determine if we will reach our targets. We certainly hope to reach our 2030 targets, but we have chosen to focus on action rather than discussing theoretical targets.

The EnvironmentGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, it is with an immense amount of pride that I stand today to address a really important motion.

The government has recognized over the last number of years that the environment really and truly does matter. One of the things that reinforces that is the commitment by the government to have a price on pollution. Even though at one point we had a patchwork, meaning some provinces had it and other provinces did not have it, we had a national government demonstrating leadership by saying that for those provinces that did not have it, we would have a price on pollution so that all regions of Canada would be treated equally and all regions would be contributing to a healthier planet.

I am wondering if my colleague could emphasize, from her perspective, how important it is that we demonstrate national leadership, using the price on pollution as a good example of that. I know many of my constituents see the environment as something we need to be giving more attention to, and something the government has responded to.

The EnvironmentGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague.

The price on pollution is perhaps the most obvious and visible measure we have put in place. As I said in my speech, pollution has no borders. The impacts of climate change have no borders. Climate change affects us all, throughout the world. Just yesterday, I met a delegation from Mozambique, which is just beginning to come out of the very painful side effects of the cyclone strike.

Absolutely, the price on pollution is the first and most important step to help us all fight against the effects of climate change, being fair to every Canadian and enabling all of us to contribute to this struggle.

The EnvironmentGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to direct your attention to page 568 of Bosc and Gagnon, which outlines the rule of anticipation, or the same-question rule. I would like to argue that the motion we are currently debating is out of order, pursuant to the vote that was just undertaken on the NDP supply motion.

I will direct your attention to the wording of the NDP supply motion, which we dispensed with. The Liberal government voted against the following wording, “to declare an environment and climate emergency”, yet the motion we are debating right now asks “that the House declare that Canada is in a national climate emergency”.

Given that this is a government motion and the government has now voted against another motion to declare a climate change emergency, I would suggest, again, given the precedent outlined in Bosc and Gagnon with regard to the rule of anticipation, that the motion before us is out of order.

The EnvironmentGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Although the titles of the motions sound similar, when we look at the text of both motions, there are a lot of dissimilar and very different areas, so the motion is in order.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.

The EnvironmentGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago I had the hon. Minister of Transport in my riding. During a guest lecture at the University of Toronto's Mississauga campus, with young people studying STEM, the minister described the first time that he went up into space and looked down. He saw a small, beautiful, lush planet that was surrounded in darkness. All differences from that perspective really melt into one beautiful ball of humanity. We have to realize with that view that all we have is each other and nothing else.

Today, I stand in the House to discuss something that is all too familiar. It is the future of our planet. We are facing a threat unlike any other, one that is negatively impacting every aspect of our lives. This threat is climate change, and we are the last generation with the power to do something about it. We cannot sit by and wait for someone else to act.

We talked about it in 2015, 2011, 2008, 2006 and 2004. Every time, it seems we are divided between those who will do something about it and those who will not, between those who will take it seriously and those who will debate its legitimacy. Climate change is not a debate. It has never been a debate. It is a reality and a crisis, and it is time to act.

Our duty is to the people who live and work in Canada, and we are seeing the effects on their everyday lives. We see wildfires rage across Canadian forests and floods destroy Canadian homes. We are feeling the impacts on our health every day as we breathe polluted air and endure more and more severe temperatures. This threat is not coming; it is here, and it has been here for years. We need courage, not cowardice, to lead the way. There must be action, and it must begin with us, united.

We were elected in 2015 with a mandate to use data-driven and scientifically proven strategies to improve the lives of Canadians. Our government developed and is implementing a plan to protect the environment and grow the economy, and it is working. Our emissions are going down and, in partnership with Canadian people, our government has created more than one million full-time jobs.

Canadians know there is a cost to pollution. We pay that cost with our economy as we repair the damage of severe weather conditions, and with health problems like asthma and chronic lung and heart disease. Our factories pay for it with bigger and stronger air conditioning units every year to prevent their machines from overheating. Our farmers pay for it when droughts force them to transport more and more water to grow their crops. The residents of Mississauga paid for it when flooding caused major damage to their homes.

Climate change is a crisis that affects not just our environment, but also our economy and our industries. We have been taking measures to solve these problems. We are improving Canadians' health by reducing methane emissions by 40% to 45% by 2025. We are helping to build a clean economy and reduce polluting greenhouse gases by launching the emerging renewable power program, which will fund projects on renewable energy technologies.

Pollution cannot be free any longer, and under our government it is not. We ensured a fair price on pollution by using a proven strategy that has achieved success around the world and right here in Canada when it was implemented in British Columbia 10 years ago. We put 90% of that money right back into the pockets of families through our climate action incentive. The other 10% is invested back into the provinces to build stronger, cleaner infrastructure in our transit, our schools, our hospitals and more.

Leading the way means innovating. It means investing in clean, renewable energy and in sustainable technologies. It means embracing and supporting innovative technologies that are more energy efficient, and making those options more affordable for Canadians. By investing in these technologies we are on the road to making Canada a pioneer in green technology.

This month, we implemented a new credit designed to make zero-emission vehicles more affordable by saving Canadians up to $5,000 on their purchase. We are expanding the availability of charging stations to ensure that these vehicles can be a real option across Canada, including in our rural communities.

We have set ambitious targets for sales of these vehicles, with a goal of having zero-emission vehicles comprise 100% of all sales by the year 2040. To help ensure that supply meets the increased demand for electric vehicles, we are working with automakers to secure voluntary production commitments. We are providing access to funding through the strategic innovation fund, to attract and support new high-quality, job-creating investments in zero-emission vehicle manufacturing in Canada. We are investing in Canadian innovation because our people have great ideas for reducing our emissions and developing clean technology. Our climate action fund is capitalizing on and supporting those great ideas. We are investing in new technologies that will revolutionize our industries.

In Mississauga—Erin Mills, I have seen with my own eyes the incredible innovations Canadians are creating to fight climate change, such as membranes that greatly reduce emissions in the production of interior products. Our communities are coming together to fight waste and pollution, embracing new public transit routes and picking up garbage in parks across the riding. In Ontario, 64% of people are in favour of putting a price on pollution. I have heard stories of Canadians using their climate action incentive rebate to invest in smart thermostats, upgrade older appliances, and invest in heat pumps and other options to reduce emissions.

I have lost count of how many conversations I have had with my constituents in Mississauga—Erin Mills about the effects of climate change. We are enduring harsher winters and scorching summers. I hear it from our youth. I hear it from our seniors. I hear it from our businesses and community leaders.

My colleagues in Parliament hear those same concerns echoed in Mississauga, across Ontario and across Canada. From coast to coast to coast, the Canadian people are declaring that they want their government to do more to fight climate change. They want a real plan to protect our environment and build our economy, and that is what we are delivering. We owe Canadians a plan, a whole-of-government plan, with all sides of the House taking ownership of the greatest test of our lifetime.

Our quality of life and our present and future prosperity are deeply connected to the environment in which we live. The extraordinary beauty of Canada's parks and our natural and wild spaces are also central to the identity of Canadians. Fighting the effects of climate change also means developing real strategies to protect our environment and biodiversity.

There have been UN reports from the most exhaustive look yet at the decline in biodiversity. There is no dispute. At least a million species are now in serious decline or facing extinction. These species could disappear if things continue the way they are. Our government is investing over a billion dollars over five years to create a new nature fund to protect species at risk, expand wildlife areas and sanctuaries, manage protected areas, implement the Species at Risk Act and establish a coordinated network of conservation areas, but we must do more.

In addition to our investments in clean technology, we are phasing out traditional, coal-fired power by 2030, with an ambitious goal of attaining 90% of electricity generation from clean sources by 2030, but we must do more.

We are developing a national strategy to reduce plastic waste in our oceans, but we must do more.

We must set an example, and we must be a model for sustainability by greening government. We are on track to reduce the government's own greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and by 80% by 2050.

One day, future generations will turn to us and ask what we did to preserve their future. On that day, we will either tell them that we stopped at nothing and did everything we could, and that we took responsible and effective action to fight the effects of climate change, or we will tell them that we did not take it seriously and we could not stand united until it was too late to act. Today in this House, we decide which answer to give.

The EnvironmentGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt my colleague's sincerity in trying to address the problem. At the same time, she has to recognize that she belongs to a government that spent $4.5 billion of our money on a pipeline. The government wants to expand that pipeline to triple its carrying capacity, which will lead to a seven-fold increase in tanker traffic in the coastal waters near my riding, where our precious, iconic wild salmon thrive and where our southern resident killer whales are endangered.

If we are going to invest that kind of money in expanding a pipeline, we probably want to see it run for the next 30 to 40 years. However, all the scientific evidence before us is telling us that we have just over a decade to act. Otherwise, there will be unmitigated, uncontrolled climate change by the end of the century.

The member obviously has an intention to do something about this, but how can she square that circle, with the government now owning a pipeline and wanting to expand it and all the greenhouse gas emissions that will come along with it? How can she square that circle with her government's actual course of action?