Debates of Nov. 26th, 2020

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, on June 17, 2019, the Liberal government declared a national climate emergency. The very next day, on June 18, the same government approved the Trans Mountain pipeline, which it bought.

The author of A Good War: Mobilizing Canada for the Climate Emergency, Seth Klein, answers what I believe to be a central question regarding the bill. He lists four markers for when we know a government has shifted into emergency mode: It spends what it takes to win, creates new economic institutions to get the job done, shifts from voluntary and incentive-based policies to mandatory measures and tells the truth about the crisis.

Does the hon. member for Guelph believe, after the government declared a climate emergency, that the bill or any action by the Liberal government adequately responds to these critical emergency markers?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the shortest answer would be yes. Some of the oil and gas sector companies, such as Enbridge, Suncor and Shell, are also committing to net zero by 2050. The agreement we had for 2030 included the upstream and downstream emissions of the pipeline, but we know we have to do better in our transition.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to talk about the new Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act.

Successive governments have, for too long, kicked the can down the road and treated the climate crisis as though it were a problem for our children's generation. That ends now. We are the first generation to clearly see the impact of climate change and we are the last generation that can stop it. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We cannot saddle our children with the burden of a dying world and a sixth mass-extinction event. We must act now.

In December 2015, Canada joined 194 other parties in reaching a historic agreement to address climate change, through the Paris Agreement. This historic agreement aimed, at a minimum, to limit the global temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to keep the temperature increase to no more than 1.5°C. According to the 2018 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global emissions must reach carbon neutrality by 2050 to limit warming to the 1.5°C goal in the Paris Agreement.

Despite what some may claim, Canada is uniquely vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, and in the north, warming is occurring nearly three times as fast.

Canadians recognize that we need to act now to avert this crisis, and they will not tolerate any inaction. I know this because in my riding of Kitchener Centre, constituents come to talk to me about climate change more than any other issue. Young Canadians are rightfully frightened by the thought of what their futures will look like if we do not get this under control now, and this is not a debt I am willing to leave them.

I was elected on a promise to get Canada to net zero by 2050, and that is what the bill would achieve. Within six months of the bill's coming into force, the minister would be required to set a new 2030 milestone target that exceeds our commitments under the Paris accord and deliver our comprehensive plan on how we are going to reach it. This is the vital first step toward achieving our 2050 goal of net-zero emissions, and every step of the way, every target and every action will be based on the best science available, as well as input from Canadians of all backgrounds and experiences.

That is why the bill would create an advisory body of 15 experts made up of key stakeholders, including indigenous people and other members of the public, who would provide expert advice to the minister in an annual report. This would ensure that we reach not only our 2030 target, but also every target that comes after it.

These targets will be vital to keeping the government on track, but they are only one piece of the puzzle. Targets need to be followed up with action. Fortunately, our government is already moving ahead on that action to ensure that Canada is at the forefront of the green economy of tomorrow.

The World Bank estimates that climate action will create $30 trillion in new investment opportunities by 2030, and our government is already making sure that Canadians are the ones who will reap those rewards. Through policies such as retrofitting homes and other buildings to be energy efficient and building new clean-energy infrastructure, not only are we taking action to meet our climate goals, but we are investing in the economy of the future and creating well-paying, middle-class jobs for Canadians.

We are making zero-emission vehicles more affordable for Canadians and investing in new charging infrastructure so that Canadians coast to coast to coast can confidently reach their destination in an electric vehicle. Electric vehicles are important for decarbonizing our economy, but to truly maximize their potential, we need to ensure that the energy used to recharge their batteries is generated from nonemitting and renewable sources.

The energy sector will play a key part in our national effort to reach carbon net zero, and the federal government will be there to support it. Initiatives such as the clean power fund will not only help increase our clean energy-generating capacity, but also build the infrastructure that moves energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed.

Our government knows that we cannot reach net zero without the ingenuity and know-how of the energy sector. Fortunately, the energy sector is already stepping up and embracing this opportunity.

Oil and gas companies such as Enbridge, Suncor and Shell have already made commitments to net-zero emissions, and they are innovating to rise to the challenge. The oil and gas sector has recognized the value behind our approach to legislate accountability and the importance of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has expressed its support for this policy, and so has Shell Canada. It stated, “We applaud the Government of Canada’s action...and look forward to working with them and doing our part to help Canada achieve this goal.”

Canada's energy sector is onside and recognizes the importance of this legislation. In fact, this legislation has received broad support, not just from the oil and gas industry, but across all sectors of the economy, from major labour organizations such as Unifor, to financial giants like TD Canada Trust, to major business organizations like the Business Council of Canada and the Toronto Region Board of Trade.

Perhaps most importantly, environmental groups have overwhelmingly supported this vital step toward ensuring that we reach net zero by 2050.

Ecojustice wrote:

This legislation is a significant step to put Canada on the course to achieve its emissions targets and sets up Canada to become a global leader.

It is a comprehensive bill that can maintain momentum for climate action when the spotlight is off the federal government.

The David Suzuki Foundation stated:

This legislation could be game-changing. It promises to be a foundation for Canada's path to meeting climate goals, domestically and internationally. Moving forward with climate accountability is exactly what the climate emergency calls for.

Smart Prosperity Institute said, “This #NetZero law charts a course for Canada’s environmental & economic success. It will help us keep pace with global leaders in tackling climate change & build a roadmap for future competitiveness & jobs in a changing world.”

This support is vitally important for ensuring we are successful in reaching our goal, and that support is possible because we listened to experts.

Our government cannot reach these goals alone. Everyone must come together so that we can achieve net zero. While each individual and business have a role to play in making net zero happen, it is the government that must be held accountable, and the bill does exactly that.

Not only does the bill require the establishment of legally binding targets every five years, it also requires that an emissions-reduction plan, a progress report and an assessment report be tabled in the House of Commons for each five-year milestone. They will be key to ensuring that this government and successive governments remain transparent and accountable to Canadian voters.

Perhaps equally important, in addition to these robust accountability mechanisms, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, an independent body, must examine and report on the Government of Canada's progress within five years of this act's coming into force and every five years thereafter. Enshrining this key oversight into law would ensure that Canadians know if their government is living up to its obligations on climate change and would provide the public with the necessary information to hold us accountable.

The bill is not a plan to make a plan. The bill sets clear priorities, timelines, accountability mechanisms and independent oversight to reach and then exceed our Paris Agreement goals. This vital framework forms the road map to a better Canada and sets us on a trajectory to achieve a clean and prosperous future. However, to achieve that future, we must start today at this key juncture in time.

When future generations look back at the fight against the climate crisis, they will see this as the moment when Canadians decided not to do what is easy, but to do what is right, and when we chose to look to the future, not the past. The actions we take now will define not only our children's future, but the future of every generation that comes after them.

Never before in history has one generation had as much responsibility for the well-being of all subsequent generations as ours does today, so I call on my hon. colleagues to put aside differences and work together for the good of our planet and all humanity. Not just the future of our country, but the future of our world depends on it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am from British Columbia and a nascent B.C. LNG industry could put a lot of people to work. It could also help eliminate a lot of coal. There are also some incredible projects, for example, the Teck Frontier mine, which is proposed to be net zero by 2050 and would give tons of jobs to first nations, as well as Albertans. The energy sector has an incredible role to play, not just for our prosperity and social services today, but also toward the technological improvements that need to happen.

I have asked the minister and many members to support amendments to make sure that the advisory board includes Canadian energy industry representatives. Does the member support that necessary information? They are going to be the ones helping us understand how the industry can transform within some of these restrictions. If they are not there, then we are not going to be able to get to any of the things the member purports to support.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend and I serve together on the environment committee and I always look forward to his interventions.

We can agree on one thing, that the energy sector is going to be extremely vital to reaching net zero. I can even quote Shell Canada, which said, “Shell's ambition is to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050 or sooner, in step with society. We applaud the Government of Canada's action today, and look forward to working with them and doing our part to help Canada achieve this goal.” I know the energy sector is proud of this bill and we are proud to work with it.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to be really clear. Not a single Canadian government has ever met its target. Now we have a piece of legislation before us that proposes, far in the distance, to get to that target. I have heard some government members in the House today say that technology will take time to roll out. However, I would say that innovation responds to urgency.

I am wondering if the member could share with the House how urgent this actually needs to be to get it done. Is there a real commitment from the government, in 10 years, to get to those targets?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with her that technology will be extremely important as we face net zero. I come from an area of the country, Kitchener-Waterloo, that is well known for its high-tech industry. I know companies there are working right now, on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, to make sure that we achieve our goals, and more importantly, that we solve this crisis.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the earlier part of the member's speech, he talked about EVs, electric vehicles. We know that the world is changing in terms of the automobile industry. Last year, it was reported that 7% of all vehicles in the world were electric vehicles. I am wondering if he can expand a bit on how important he sees the electric vehicle revolution being to Canada's ability to meet the goals that we have set out in this legislation.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. I am really happy to answer it because the federal and provincial governments made an investment in the Ford Oakville plant to make electric vehicles. I know right now there is also a rebate that is in place to help Canadians bring down the price of EVs, zero-emission vehicles.

When we look at electric vehicles, we have a tremendous opportunity because right now it is a nascent industry. We have an opportunity to be a global leader. We see countries in Europe that are discussing how they can also electrify their networks, but more importantly, this could be something that Canada could lead in, as it has led in many other areas.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am just curious if the hon. member has read the IPCC's special report on 1.5°C from October 2018, because that report specifically found that there is no economic or technological barrier to holding to 1.5°C. We have all the technology we need. What we lack is the political will.

What we need to do is increase our target, get off the Harper target, get onto the Paris target, because we do not have a Paris target—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We need a very brief answer from the member for Kitchener Centre.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe this bill will hold the government accountable, it will be transparent and it will lead us in the right direction.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on Bill C-12, which is legislation that would create transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Climate change is, without a doubt, one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. It is literally an existential crisis. The House already recognized this when, spurred on by the likes Greta Thunberg in Sweden and so many environmental advocates right here in Canada, we passed a motion in June 2019 declaring a climate emergency, but now it is critical to act and to act quickly on the science that is all around us.

If the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us anything, it is that public policy, be it in relation to health or the environment, must always be informed by evidence and based on science, and this science is unequivocal. Bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tell us that climate change is real, it is happening all around us and if we, as national governments, do not act decisively, the damage will be irreversible. That is exactly why we must act now, for our children, for our grandchildren, for the future of this country and indeed, it is not hyperbolic to say, for the future of this planet.

In fact, my view is that Canadians of all ages are actually ahead of us on climate action and climate activism. We saw this clearly when tens of thousands of Canadians took to the streets in September 2019 to participate in climate marches and demonstrations right across the country. We saw this again when Canadians went to the polls in the last federal election in October 2019, returning our government to power based on a commitment to a more sustainable and greener future, a commitment where we stated we would not only meet but exceed Canada's 2030 emissions reduction goals while setting legally binding, five-year milestones to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Today is an important day. This debate is an important debate, because in tabling and debating Bill C-12, we are fulfilling that important campaign commitment. We know how important this issue is to Canadians across the country.

I, personally, as the member for Parkdale—High Park, know how important this issue is to my constituents through the individuals and groups who speak to me constantly about the urgency of acting on climate change. PHP 4 Climate Action, Green 13, Green Parkdale, Greenest City, Roncy Reduces, Bloor West Reduces, Humberside's HEAT and EcoSchools Canada are just a sample of the groups that are vocal about this issue and are advocating on this issue. These are groups that want not only a net-zero emissions future, but who are already taking concrete steps now to change their behaviour and model best practices for others. It is through these types of community-led, grassroots initiatives that I know we can, together, build back better and greener coming out of this pandemic. I thank these community leaders for all of their advocacy and for always prompting and pushing for even greater ambition on climate change.

When I had the opportunity to go COP24 in Katowice, Poland, prior to attending that climate change conference hosted by the UN, I consulted these leaders. I asked for their input and advice about the issues to focus on during my time at COP24, and that help and expertise was invaluable.

I will turn now to Bill C-12 and how it fits into the broader plan to tackle climate change.

This historic piece of legislation will help us meet our net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target by 2050 by imposing a legally binding process for the federal government. Concretely, this means that this government and every future government, regardless of political affiliation, once the bill is passed, will be held accountable when it comes to lowering our greenhouse gas emissions in order to do our part in reaching the overall goal of net zero by 2050.

This type of legislation will be pivotal to put us on the path to meet the overall objective identified in the Paris Agreement, which has been spoken about on many occasions during the course of today's debate, and the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels. We have to reach these targets. The stakes of not doing so are simply too high, again, not just for this country but for all countries wanting to meet the 2050 objective, which is an objective that has been agreed to by 120 different nation-states around the planet. In order to do so here, what we are proposing with this legislation is establishing clear milestones to ensure that we are making continued and steady progress.

Bill C-12 would ensure that five-year targets would be set. A progress report and an assessment report would be required for each step. By doing this, we are putting clear measures in place to ensure that the fight against climate change is prioritized and addressed in a transparent manner. We are making sure that if a future government misses a five-year target, it will be held accountable for it by assessing its failure and putting in place a plan to meet its shortfall.

There would be no excuses. The report would explicitly need to mention the reasons why the federal government failed to meet the target, a description of the actions that the government is planning to undertake in order to address the failure, and any other relevant information the minister wished to include.

Further, Bill C-12 also contemplates an advisory body, composed of 15 members, that would be created in order to assist the minister of the environment in achieving net zero emissions by 2050. It would be consulting and engaging with experts, stakeholders, indigenous peoples and the public. Based on these consultations, the advisory body would be providing advice to the government on how to meet its targets.

This is an important measure to keep the Government of Canada focused and on track when it comes to reducing emissions and formulating policy that is informed by science and expertise, as I outlined earlier.

Finally, Bill C-12 would require the minister of finance to publish an annual report that explains how the financial risks and opportunities associated with climate change are being considered by departments and Crown corporations in their decision-making process.

Let us turn to the issue of milestone years and targets. It is something that has been raised by commentators, and on the floor of this Chamber during the context of this debate. Concerns have been raised, mainly, that the first five-year cycle under Bill C-12 commences in 2025, with the first milestone year being 2030. This begs the question of what transpires between now and 2025 under this legislative model. When I reflected on this myself and looked back at the bill, I noted a couple of important points.

Hypothetically we could see passage of this legislation, if Parliament undertook the scrutiny required. The first point is that within six months of this bill coming into force, potentially in the fall of 2021, we could have a tabling of the milestone plan and the target.

Second, the bill stipulates that within five years of coming into force, again, potentially five years from the spring of next year, the commissioner of the environment, in conjunction with the Auditor General, would examine and report on the Government of Canada's implementation of measures aimed at mitigating climate change.

We have also heard a lot about these progress reports. I mentioned them myself earlier in my comments. A progress report must be tabled, and it would form part of the government's scrutiny and the scrutiny of all future levels of government.

The frequency of these types of progress reports is important. That should not be understated. If we were to have a current progress report, looking back on what we have accomplished as a Liberal government since we came to power in 2015, I would posit that progress report would be extensive.

Why do I say that? No federal government has done more to fight climate change than the current federal Liberal government. Our very first action in 2015 was to participate in the Paris conference. With 194 parties, we also signed on to and led the Paris Agreement shortly after. As soon as we came into office, we decided to unmuzzle scientists, which prompted one Globe and Mail reporter, Mark Hume, to state, “The Conservatives wanted tight control on the message and didn't trust their own experts to be experts. That has all changed now. [The Prime Minister] has unmuzzled the scientists.”

In 2018, we championed the development of an Ocean Plastics Charter following the G7 ministerial meeting on climate change. This charter is now endorsed by 25 governments and 60 businesses and organizations worldwide. It aims to keep our oceans free from plastics.

In 2018, we put a price on carbon pollution. This concrete action is a pillar of our approach to climate action. It applies to individuals and industries. The current price on carbon is $30 per tonne. By 2022, it will rise to $50 per tonne, as will the climate action incentive rebate, which allows Canadians the opportunity to take those dollars and invest in greener alternatives in their everyday lives. By putting a price on pollution, we are clearly contributing to lowering emissions.

On October 7 of this year, the Minister of Environment provided more details on our plan to ban harmful single-use plastics. This is an ambitious step toward achieving zero plastic waste.

What is important to underline, as a final comment, is that we also believe fundamentally that the economy and the environment are not dichotomous. This is a false presentation put forward most frequently by members of the official opposition.

The single thing I will point members to is something that has already been raised in the context of today's debate. We are funding battery vehicles: zero-emitting vehicles. Plants are being opened in Oakville and Windsor, by Fiat and Ford, to do just that. It will embrace a just transition and show that we can build toward a sustainable future and keep people employed at the same time.

This bill is part of that broader suite of approaches. It is a critical bill for this generation and future generations. It is one I hope all parliamentarians can get behind.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am beginning to think, watching the reactions of my hon. colleagues on the other side, that tabling this bill demonstrates they have a wonderful sense of humour.

They are talking about targets in 2030, 10 years from now, to 2050, 30 years from now. There is an old saying an economist once said: Eventually we are all dead. These targets are so far out.

Let us look at what the Liberals are doing today, and for that I turn to former Liberal MP Dan McTeague, who just put a commentary out. He said that the current targets for 2020, which the Liberal government adopted in 2015, are going to be missed by 99.2%. That is not even close to being serious. Regarding the Paris targets the government has accepted, it is on track today to miss those by at least 15%, and we are still 10 years out.

How can we take all this talk of post-2030 seriously when the government cannot even hit targets today? They are missing them by 99.2%.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, forgive me if there is a bit of incredulity on this side of the House in the climate activism I am sensing from that member.

In terms of what we have been doing, I listed some of the things, if he was listening to my comments, and I will list more. We put approximately $60 billion into initiatives such as cleaner infrastructure, public transit and ensuring home retrofits. I mentioned the carbon price, which is the single most important lever, and is appreciated by industry and individuals.

The member's concern would only be valid if no action had been taken to date. I have listed copious examples of what we have done since 2015 to address climate action.

What this bill would do is ensure that not only we, but any future government, would maintain that course, show further ambition and be held accountable to the Canadian people. That is surely an initiative all parliamentarians should be behind.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is incredible to hear Conservatives talk about meeting climate objectives and their new-found desire to do something about climate change.

Not even five or six years ago, Stephen Harper was literally muzzling scientists and telling them they were not allowed to utter the words climate change. Suddenly members on the opposite side of the House are challenging the government for not doing enough to fight climate change.

I am wondering if the member can expand a bit more on where he sees we have actually come in the last five to six years since Stephen Harper was in power.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an important point. We have come to a stage where the Canadian public and Canadian businesses are behind the same goal. It is unfortunate not all parties are behind the same goal. I think about four out of five parties in this chamber are. The goal is simply that we have to be heading toward a net-zero-emissions future.

I will return to that zero-emission vehicle strategy, because it is not just about opening up plants in Oakville and Windsor that will make zero-emission vehicles. It is also about targets we set as a government. Another part of what we campaigned on was to set a goal that there would no longer be such a thing as an emitting vehicle in this country by 2040.

That is the kind of ambition we need to see. That is the kind of ambition that will be entrenched in this kind of proposal, because the plan to get to that goal will be entrenched as part of the five-year cyclical objectives and targets that would be established under Bill C-12. Those are the kinds of initiatives we—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, this bill references the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; however, the Liberal government has not actually enforced the UN declaration into law.

Will the Liberals put action behind their words? They are talking a good game about doing that. Will they actually commit to upholding the rights of indigenous people by enforcing and bringing into law the UN declaration?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that is an important question. It is important to inject indigenous perspectives into this discussion. That is something that has informed our approach to the climate throughout, and that will continue for the purposes of Bill C-12.

In direct response to the member for London—Fanshawe, absolutely, we have been crystal clear. It is in the Minister of Justice's mandate letter. He has been public about committing to tabling UNDRIP legislation as government legislation before the end of this year. That is exactly what we intend to do, and I would note, for her edification, that in the last Parliament it proceeded as a private member's bill, and it was only stopped in the Senate because of opposition from the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, it is very important and great to rise today in the House on Bill C-12, which I have read extensively over the last couple days. It is the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act.

Why is it important to rise? It is because of the opportunity that is ahead of us, the residents in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, the residents here in the province of Ontario, and the residents and all the citizens across Canada, to achieving net zero by 2050.

What are the economic opportunities that we are speaking about? Why is the target of the legislation we have put forward in this House important to families like mine and to kids all over this country? It is because of the economic opportunities that it would create, the families that would benefit from it and a stronger, cleaner and healthier environment, which we all want to have and which should be a non-partisan issue to achieve.

I have read extensively on this topic. Even just yesterday, the Royal Bank of Canada laid out a plan on carbon sequestration with some comments from one of the economists there. I just want to read this out, because this is not a partisan issue, this is about growing the economy. We see this from Conservatives in the U.K. under Boris Johnson and in other places in the world. People are coming together and working together on getting to net zero.

RBC wrote in its report:

As it lays out long-term climate plans, the federal government has an opportunity to write a new chapter in Canadian climate policy: one that acknowledges the importance of the energy sector, encourages abatement across industries, leverages investment from the private sector, and spurs innovation in sectors that contribute the most to our climate challenge.

Yes, we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, we want to set those targets. The framework that is laid out in Bill C-12 is functional and workable, and within six months of the legislation enactment, a plan would be put forward to continually lower greenhouse gas emissions.

In my research, I saw this week “Canada's Energy Future 2020”. I encourage all members of Parliament to read it and look through that document. It is about Canada's energy future and how important it is that we have different sources of energy in this country to continue to power our economy going forward.

There is one company I need to highlight, because it is so important. There is an economic opportunity here in the world, because we are talking about a global economy that our country participates in. It is a global economy that our workers compete in. We need to make sure they have the right skills, training and know-how to compete against the best and the brightest, and we have the best and the brightest in this country.

I think about the Enel Group. Most MPs know my heritage. My parents came from Italy and then immigrated to Canada. Here is a company from my parents' homeland, which just received the ranking of number one on Bloomberg's sustainability index. It is a company that is investing in green technologies all over the world.

I will read a comment from earlier this year. I believe it is from January 27, 2020. It says, “For the first time, the United Nations Global Compact has galvanized the chief financial officers...of global companies—responsible for investments worth $14 trillion—by establishing a taskforce to help close the gap in funding a sustainable future.”

That is what we are talking about. We are talking about a conversation for tomorrow. We are talking about our future, and we need to get with it. We need to get this legislation implemented. We need to develop that plan, work with the private sector, the provinces and non-profits to move Canada forward, because the opportunity is there. We have the skills. We have the know-how. We have the resources.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Health of Animals Act

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

moved that Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I know that all of us, when we have the opportunity to stand up in this House, are very proud of representing our constituents. I have stood up in this House many times, but I think this is one of the most proud moments I have ever had as a parliamentarian because I have the opportunity to not only to represent my own constituents, but also farmers, ranchers, farm families and processors in this industry across Canada. I am presenting an amendment to the Health of Animals Act, which I am confident that all members in this House will support, as it will protect the mental health of our farm families, but also the integrity of our food supply.

I want to take the members of this House back to just over a year ago when I received a frantic phone call from a farmer in my riding. He was extremely upset. He and his sons had gotten up to check on their turkeys in the morning, but when they walked into their barn they found that dozens of activists and protestors had broken onto their farm and into their barns, demanding the release of their birds.

What made that interesting is that they were free-range turkeys. They were not in cages or mistreated in any way. They were healthy and happy. The only risk to the health of these animals was actually from the protestors who were on that property.

When I left from Ottawa, I went back home to the riding to meet with Mr. Tschetter and his family. He was completely distraught. He had not slept in days. He did not understand why he was targeted. He had done everything he possibly could to take care of his animals because he knows they are his livelihood.

In fact, he had nothing to hide. When he got into his barn that morning and saw 30 or 35 protestors, he invited them to tour his farm. He invited the media, protestors and activists to walk around to see what he had and what his operation entailed.

My bill is really trying to address two things. The first is the mental health of our farmers and farm families, as well as the protection of those families, their workers and the animals they care for. The second is the very important issue of biosecurity on our farms. This is a critical issue as we try to protect our food supply and our supply chain.

What my bill sets out to do is a very simple change. It is an amendment to the Health of Animals Act. I really wanted to make it as simple as possible, so we could get the support of every member in this House.

The Health of Animals Act, as it currently stands, has control of diseases and toxic substances that may affect animals, and diseases transferred from animals to humans. However, the obligations and prohibitions within the act only deal with the farmer who owns those animals. There are no protections in the act that deal with individuals or organizations who may break into private property and put those animals at risk.

That is really what my private member's bill is trying to address. I did not want to invent something new. I wanted to have something that was specific to the issue that we are dealing with. I also wanted something that was not a one-off on an issue that happened in my own riding, but something that could address the bigger picture of biosecurity on our farms.

I really want to be crystal clear on this to all members in this House. The one thing that this bill is not is a prohibition of protest. Protesting one's view and one's opinion is absolutely anyone's right as a Canadian. We want to uphold that. One's right to protest on public property is absolutely one's right. However, when someone crosses a line by entering or breaking into private property and putting the health of animals and farm families at risk, there have to be consequences.

I think that all of us in this House understand this is not an isolated incident. My staff and I went through media reports and did some research. There have been literally dozens of these types of incidents across the country, touching ridings of every single party in this House, from one coast to the next, in every sector of agriculture. We had 50 protestors at a hog farm in in Abbotsford, B.C. We had people trying to forcibly remove animals from a dairy farm in Quebec, and we saw protestors at a pork-breeding facility in Ontario.

As I said, this really sparked an interest in me. This incident in my own riding with the Tschetter family had an impact not only on that family, but also on farm families across my riding. They inundated my office with questions such as these: Are we free game for protestors and activists? Are we not safe on our own farms? Are our animals not protected?

What really struck me with that protest at the farm in Fort Macleod, which is usually quite a quiet little town, was the fact that many of those activists and those protesters had been on a hog farm in Abbotsford only a week before.

This is really the crux of my private member's bill. I do not think these protesters quite understand, perhaps through no fault of their own, the consequences of their actions or the very strict biosecurity protocols we have on farms, which are there for very important reasons.

I know that my colleagues in this House understand that no one cares for their animals, their land and their environment more than farmers, ranchers and processors do. I hope that biosecurity is an important aspect of this bill that we can focus on through our debate this evening.

When those protesters are coming onto private property and breaking into barns in areas where they may not fully comprehend what is at stake, they are posing a very real risk to a critical industry within our country, and this is very real. African swine fever, avian flu, foot-and-mouth disease, and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, are very real threats to our industry.

Obviously, this has hurt my riding. Almost two decades ago, we had the BSE outbreak in Alberta. That had an impact of between $6 billion and $10 billion on our cattle industry in Canada, as the second that BSE was confirmed in central Alberta, more than 40 countries shut their borders to Canadian cattle exports. It was a $10-billion hit. Most important, 3,000 ranchers went out of business, including many of my constituents and my friends.

I can recall ranchers like Grant Hirsche, who found a little processor, slaughtered his cattle, found a used refrigeration truck and drove up and down Highway 2, trying to sell his beef on the side of the highway just to keep his operation afloat. Thousands of ranchers were not so lucky. Almost 20 years later, we are still trying to rebuild our cattle herd in this country. Twenty years later, the impact of that outbreak is still being felt. Many countries are only now reopening their border to Canadian beef.

In 2004, we had a massive outbreak of avian flu in the Fraser Valley. Almost 300 million animals had to be euthanized. The economic impact of that was more than $300 million. To this day, we have to be aware of avian flu. There were some positives that came out of that. We have improved surveillance, improved testing and improved quarantine measures, but, most important, we have improved regulations and protocols around biosecurity, which everyone must abide by.

I know many of us in this House who have had an opportunity to tour the farms and ranches in our constituencies or neighbouring constituencies in rural Canada understand. I visited the Kielstra farm, a poultry operation, this summer. I had to put on booties, a lab coat, a hair net and a face mask. This had nothing to do with COVID. These are the biosecurity protocols on just about every farm in Canada. Many times these protesters and activists just do not understand this.

We have a very big threat facing us right now. I talked about BSE, foot-and-mouth disease and avian flu, but African swine fever is a very real threat as well. There has been an outbreak in China, which has decimated the Chinese hog population. It has spread now through most of Southeast Asia, Central America and many parts of eastern Europe.

Were African swine fever to come here to Canada, the impacts would be profound. The pork industry in Canada is a $24-billion industry. That is 45,000 jobs from gate to plate. Seventy per cent of the hogs that we raise here in Canada are exported. That is $4.25 billion.

If there is an outbreak of African swine fever in Canada, international markets will close. It take us years, as we learned with BSE, to rebuild that confidence in those export markets to try to regain that global opportunity. The threats of these animal-borne diseases are very real and we cannot take them lightly.

All of us in the House understand the impact COVID-19 has had on our constituencies and certainly on every aspect of every industry in our economy. This is a human-borne virus that has brought our country, and just about every country around the world, to a screeching halt. Imagine what an animal-borne virus could do to Canada's agriculture industry, whether it is hogs, cattle or feathers. It would be devastating.

All of us in the House, if we had an opportunity to walk back in time and do a better job of preparing for the COVID-19 pandemic, for which all of us as parliamentarians take some responsibility, I know we would do that to have a better strategy in place to protect Canadians.

We have that opportunity today to to that with this amendment to the Health of Animals Act, which would protect the health of animals on farm. It would also protect the mental health of our farmers and our farm families. We cannot make the same mistakes we have made in the past. We simply cannot afford an animal-borne disease or virus outbreak on farms or within processing plants across the country.

We have dug ourselves a very deep financial hole as a result of COVID-19 and there are only a few industries that as Canadians we can look to and rely on to help dig us out of that financial hole. Energy would be one; agriculture is the other. If we do not provide agriculture with the resources and the safeguards they need to ensure they are protected, then we leave them vulnerable. I do not think any Canadian would support that.

I was encouraged to read a comment from the Liberal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food the other day, saying there were unacceptable actions of extremist groups protesting on dairy farms. I know it is a concern of hers as well. Strengthening the biosecurity measures for trespassers on farms, ranches and processing plants are something farm groups, commodity groups and processors across the country support. I have been honoured to have their letters, emails and quotes of support from across the country, which is really buoyed our efforts on this private member's bill.

I am confident that the Liberal government as well as my colleagues throughout the House also understand the mental health strain our farm families are under right now and the importance of protecting our food security and food supply, especially now as we try to rebuild and come out of this pandemic. This is no time to put our food supply and food security at risk.

I really want to leave this message very clear with my colleagues. I know the opposition to this private member's bill will be based on this. In no way is the bill a prohibition on protesting. People are more than welcome to protest on public property, on the gravel road, on the highway outside the farm fence, but there has to be a line in the sand. That line is when people cross onto private property and put the health of a farm family, their workers and their animals at risk.

We must do everything we possibly can to put protections in place for our food security and food supply. As I said, we cannot make the same mistakes we have in the past when it comes to animal-borne diseases that would devastate our agriculture industry. This is an opportunity to be proactive. I look forward to questions and support from my colleagues throughout the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was very passionate and very meaningful in his words. I know this matters a lot not only to his constituents but to many others. I have three quick questions. I know he will not be able to necessarily answer them all, but I want to put them on the record.

He mentioned some of the provinces where these protests had been taking place. Some of those provinces have introduced provincial laws. What are his thoughts on whether this is best handled by the provinces?

Are there any examples of where these protests have led to the biosecurity risk he mentioned in his concerns?

He mentioned that the protestors did not understand. The provisions he has suggested be amended have some aspect of protestors understanding that they are wilfully going into this. Is that a concern for him moving forward?

I would like him to answer those questions, but I have put them on the record for debate.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to go through those questions as quickly as I can. I will answer the member's last question first.

This bill would put tangible consequences for not only the individual who breaks into a property, but also the organizations that often encourage this type of activity, which there is not a law at this time at the provincial level.

He spoke about provinces taking this on. Ontario and Alberta have done something similar. Their amendments and changes are to the Criminal Code. We wanted something overarching across the country. We cannot have consequences in some provinces and not in others. This addresses something across the country. It is not a Criminal Code aspect. We have focused this on the Health of Animals Act.