Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2020

Opposition Motion—Status Update on COVID-19 Vaccines

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 7:02 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, we would like a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, September 23, 2020, the division stands deferred until Monday, December 7, 2020, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

I want to inform the House that, because it is getting late, the period provided for private members' business is cancelled. The order is therefore deferred to a future sitting.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you might find unanimous consent to call it 7:17 p.m. at this point so we could get on to the late show.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Ethics

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has been a bit of a custom of mine over the last couple of weeks, during Adjournment Proceedings, to bring good news to the House, and tonight is no exception.

My sister and her husband, just last week, welcomed their first-born. Beatrice MacDonald was born to my sister Allie and her husband Kyle MacDonald. I am so excited to welcome Beatrice here in Canada's House, and I want to congratulate Allie and Kyle and thank all the health care professionals: the staff, nurses and doctors at the Perth and Smiths Falls District Hospital who allowed Beatrice to arrive safely and took good care of my sister.

We know what a challenging year this has been for our health care professionals, and they did not let it show. With professionalism and great care, they took care of my family and my newest little niece. It is really important that I have the opportunity to mention that to the House this evening.

[An hon. member]

Time.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Now I do want to talk about time, and I thank my colleague for mentioning that.

For over 40 hours, we had Liberal members filibuster committees to prevent the truth. Opposition members wanted to continue the work that parliamentarians had agreed to undertake during the beginning of this Parliament's first session.

What happened? The WE Charity scandal gripped Parliament. It gripped this country, and on the eve documents were to be released, the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, shutting it down for six weeks and saying there would be all kinds of time to answer those questions when Parliament resumed. The Liberals just needed time for a reset to give their new vision for Canada.

The second verse was the same as the first. We heard promises that dated back to 1993 that they have not been able to keep. I would have been about nine years old the first time they tried some of those commitments. Maybe on the 15th attempt they will get it right, but we are not optimistic.

Canadians will see, south of the border, our American neighbours start getting vaccinated next week. The same will occur in the European Union, in the United Kingdom and in many, many other countries. Canadians wonder when we are going to get a vaccine. They wonder what the plan is. They wonder what is going to happen next year.

The government continues to introduce legislation hastily and then seek the unanimous consent of the House. I am proud to say Her Majesty's loyal opposition has supported important measures to help Canadians during these times, but it is really no thanks to planning on the part of the government. It wasted those six weeks during its prorogation cover-up. It wasted 40 hours at the ethics committee, dozens of hours at the finance committee and many hours at other committees.

What are the Liberals so desperate to hide that they are not willing to get to work, roll up their sleeves and introduce a plan for Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, first, let me congratulate my friend on becoming an uncle yet again. He may have other brothers and sisters who have children as well. My congratulations to the parents of special baby Beatrice.

We have had dialogues in the past and this evening we are talking about a few issues. The member makes reference to filibusters, he talked about the prorogation, he talked about the government bringing in legislation and wanting to rush it through.

We have been talking a lot about the MAID issue, which is very important. It is a life-and-death matter. The member nodded his head in the affirmative, recognizing just how important that legislation is. However, we have a Superior Court in Quebec with a deadline that is coming up, and we see the Conservatives conducting a filibuster on this important legislation. Now, they will say that they want to have more time, but we have been debating the issue of assisted death for many years now. There have literally been hundreds of hours of debate, committee hearings and so forth. With this pending deadline, we are now hoping to get the bill into third reading as early as tomorrow, yet the Conservatives are filibustering. I guess they would argue that is a good filibuster.

The member talked about the prorogation. I do not know how he calculates more than three days, because, in theory, we were supposed to come back on September 21 and we ended up coming back on September 23. Keep in mind, we sat for four days inside this House where we literally had hundreds if not thousands of questions to the government during the summer. I think that there has been a net gain for the official opposition and other opposition parties in terms of being able to ask questions.

There is always the opportunity for opposition to work with the government. I like the word “collaboratively”. At one time, I think there was a higher sense of collaboration, and the member is right in the sense that, on the coronavirus, which I spoke earlier today about and I know how important that issue is to Canadians, we are constantly looking for collaboration. We have been receiving collaboration from all over Canada, from other levels of government, such as municipalities and provincial and territorial governments, indigenous leaders, and non-profits. There are so many sectors working with the government, and even the Conservatives, to a certain degree, have. However, when it comes to the vaccination issue, I think we may see the Conservative wanting in terms of being a little more creative in providing better solutions or ideas on distribution, keeping in mind the federal responsibilities working with provinces and so forth. We will get there, because we are listening to the health care experts and science on this issue.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments.

This government has clearly been in no hurry to pass legislation. The official opposition asked the government to have regular sittings in a hybrid format throughout the summer, and that the House not rise for the summer. We did not ask to sit for four days, but to sit throughout the summer, and the government could have advanced other legislation at that time. However, there was no agreement with the other opposition parties and certainly not with the government.

The government had the opportunity to advance its legislative agenda and to address a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it failed to do that at the time. Now, the opposition wants to debate and the government wants to continue the cover-up it started with prorogation. Why? Why not help Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the government is in a minority situation. There was an example last spring where opposition members said that, well, no, they did not want more government days, they wanted more opposition days. The member will recall that the combined opposition parties took away a government day so that they could have yet another opposition day. I recall that quite well.

The government has been very much following the calendar, and because of the coronavirus, we actually sat, for the first time in 30 years I understand, during the summer to ensure that opposition members would be able to hold the government to account and provide ideas in regards to the coronavirus.

Natural Resources

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, since I came here in 2015, the government has waged a full-fledged attack on my home province of Alberta. It began with flippant statements by the Prime Minister even before he was elected as the Prime Minister. I remember when he forgot to mention Alberta on Canada Day. There is the carbon tax, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. These are all attacks on Alberta.

We are now seeing the new clean fuel standard, which is once again a full-fledged, frontal attack by the Liberals on what the energy sector is all about. I have some statistics: 30,000 jobs nationally and approximately 20 billion dollars' worth of capital will leave Canada if we put in the clean fuel standard.

Yesterday at committee, I had the opportunity to ask the minister about the CFS. He told me not to worry, as the government is diversifying the economy, and that Alberta should be thankful for the new standard being put in place. Nothing could be further from the truth.

About a month ago, Alberta released a brand new recycling hub idea to recycle plastics in the province. Not even 24 hours later, the government labelled plastic a toxic substance. What will that do to the energy sector and Alberta as a whole? It attacks the workers and the jobs in that sector. At the end of the day, vehicles are largely made of plastic, as are the pipes that go into the ground. This is yet another unfortunate piling on by the government.

We have seen the government add red tape and cause constant delays in approval processes. When I got here in 2015, I could not have imagined the extent to which the current government, the Prime Minister and the ministers have gone on to attack my province.

Thankfully, we were able to change the provincial government. Unfortunately, we had a Notley NDP government there for a full four years, which added more burden to the energy sector. We still have yet to get rid of the federal government.

Issues have now been going on for five years. Why does the government continually insist on implementing policies that hurt Albertans?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I want to first congratulate the Alberta government and all Albertans for their support of Canada's goal to reach zero plastic waste by 2030. Alberta is a key partner in implementing the Canada-wide strategy on zero plastic waste and we welcome the province's recently announced goal to become the western North America centre of excellence for plastics recycling by 2030. We can only reach these goals by working together.

Congratulations are also in order for Alberta's agricultural plastic recycling pilot program, which aims to help address the issue of agricultural plastic waste. Across Canada and across economic sectors, there is an emerging consensus that a circular economic approach is core to addressing the problem of plastic waste and pollution. When plastic waste is reused in new products through enhanced recycling techniques and technologies, there is a significant opportunity to recapture the value of materials, including products such as agricultural plastics used in Alberta.

We are also encouraged by the unanimous support of a recent motion in the Alberta legislature to examine the opportunities afforded by implementing extended producer responsibility. With it, Alberta has the opportunity to move into the ranks of the leading provinces in plastic recycling, such as Ontario, Quebec and B.C.

On the question of the proposal to add plastic manufactured items to schedule 1 of the CEPA, this is an important step to allow us to manage the waste and pollution caused by plastic products. We conducted a science assessment of plastic pollution. Its core findings are that microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment and harmful to wildlife and habitat. Canadians see the effects of plastic pollution in their communities and waterways. They see the volumes of plastic waste being discarded and they expect the government to take action.

The proposal to list plastic manufactured items on schedule 1 of CEPA would enable the government to take measures to address the pollution and waste along the life cycle of plastics and protect our environment, while also moving Canada to a more circular resource-efficient economy.

The government does not believe that this action hurts Albertans or any other Canadians. On the contrary, acting to better manage plastic waste will keep plastics in the economy and out of Canada's environment.

Minister Wilkinson, the minister of environment, recently released, for consultation, a discussion paper that provides an overview of the government's proposed next steps. It contains a framework to address single-use plastics along with a proposed list of six single-use items to either ban or restrict as well as a proposal for the establishment of recycled content requirements in products and packaging. This latter action aims to drive investment in recycling infrastructure and spur innovation in technology and product design.

We want to support the growth of the Canadian recycling industry, boost overall economic growth and create new jobs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. All of these proposed actions have the potential to complement and accelerate progress toward Alberta's goal to become a centre of excellence for plastics recycling.

The government wants to hear from Canadians and stakeholders on its proposed approach to address plastic pollution and waste. The comments received will help shape the choices on the path forward to a more circular economy for plastics.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that he is not to use the name of a minister or an MP by their first name or last name.

The hon. member for Edmonton Riverbend.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, the reason why the labelling of plastic substances is so detrimental not just to my province of Alberta but across the country is because the government did it in this back door way. Are we debating in here the labelling of plastics? No, we are not. The way the government did it was to put it through without any sort of legislation. It did it through the back door, which has the entire stakeholder community confused as to whether it has to move today, tomorrow or yesterday with respect to changing its products.

Why did the government choose this lack of transparency, in a sneaky way, to label plastics as toxic?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, the provinces, territories and municipalities are leaders in the recovery and recycling of plastic waste. The Government of Canada is continuing to work with them to strengthen existing programs and increase Canada's capacity to reuse and recover more plastics. This will include collaborating with them to ensure that the rules are consistent and transparent across the country and that producers and sellers of plastic products are made responsible for collecting these plastics.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the parliamentary secretary to shut his microphone off when he is not speaking, so it does not interfere with the interpretation or with the person who is actually speaking.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The Environment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, in Adjournment Proceedings this evening, I am pursuing a question for which I did not receive an adequate answer on November 20.

I asked about the new legislation before us, Bill C-12, which proclaims itself as a net-zero climate accountability act. It fails on almost every point. The Green caucus is struggling with how to handle it. We want so very much to support climate accountability, but we struggle with whether we can even vote for this legislation at second reading to send it to committee.

Here is what the legislation must do as the bottom line requirement to be called accountability on net zero for climate action: We have to get the science right, we have to get the process right and we have to get the accountability right. Right now, it has three strikes and this legislation is out.

Getting the science right means that in the preamble, one does not cite one aspect of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change science, that to hold to 1.5°C we must have net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, all the while ignoring the closer-term reality of the emergency and the urgency. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also says that to have any hope of holding to 1.5°C, we need massive reductions in greenhouse gases in the next decade.

It is not an even pace of having three decades so we take our time and do it in even bits every 10 years. No, we cannot do that. Most of the heavy lifting has to be done before 2030. That is not clear in the legislation. As a matter of fact, it is denied by the way the legislation is structured with a first milestone year in 2030.

Next is getting the process right. I am honestly baffled that the Liberal government appears to have ignored the experience garnered in other countries with climate accountability legislation. The U.K. has had its legislation since 2008. There are lessons to be learned there. Similarly, New Zealand, which brought in its legislation, learned from the U.K.'s experience, as did Denmark. All of the climate accountability legislation in countries where it is working have relied on expert advice. To the extent they have an advisory group, they are experts.

This legislation wants to have an advisory body that seems to be another version of a multistakeholder group without expertise. That is a very significant error. I like multistakeholder groups. I used to be vice-chair of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which was destroyed and repealed. It was originally put in place by the Mulroney government, by the way, and it was repealed under Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012. We should bring a national round table or something like that back, but not through the backdoor of Bill C-12, where we need expertise, not multistakeholder advice.

The third area of accountability that fails is having the mechanisms to hold the government to account and getting them right. This bill does not use mandatory language around the minister meeting a target. It is interesting. I have been conferring with colleagues in New Zealand and they are looking at saying, if the target is missed, that means the government will have to make up what it missed by buying credits and paying for them. Their finance department is getting ready to book the costs of missing the target. Therefore, there is a financial penalty and the government will then be keeping its eye on the ball to avoid that penalty.

The bottom line here is that the Paris Agreement now has the support of the United States, President-elect Joe Biden has appointed a high-level special envoy in John Kerry. Canada should be jumping up right now to be bold and ambitious.

This bill is not what we need. I hope we can see changes before it comes back at third stage and report stage.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, the immediate priority of the government is to support Canadians through the pandemic. However, we are also planning strategically for how to promote economic prosperity while also addressing the global crisis of climate change.

Canadians are experiencing the impacts of climate change and the government understands the urgent need to take action and ensure that sustainability is built into all aspects of our economy. This is critical for Canadians today and for our future generations.

We are making progress through Canada's current climate plan, the pan-Canadian framework. This plan is projected to achieve a historic level of emissions reductions, but we know we need to do more. That is why the government has committed to exceeding its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions targets, and putting the country on a path to prosper in a net-zero emissions economy by 2050.

We have also committed to bringing forward a new NDC emission reduction target by 2030, prior to COP26 in November 2021.

To reach these targets, we are strengthening existing measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and introduce new ones. The 2020 fall economic statement announced some of these new measures, and our work to build back better will make the economy greener, more inclusive, more resilient and more competitive.

Investments include putting climate action at the centre of our plan to create a million new jobs; bolstering training support for those hit hardest by the pandemic, including marginalized and racialized women, indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, and new Canadians; and proposing to provide up to 700,000 grants to homeowners to help them make energy efficient improvements to their homes.

We are committed to investing in Canada's clean power supply and working to connect Canadians with clean electricity across the country. We are investing in zero-emission vehicles, including charging and refuelling infrastructure. The Government of Canada is also working to develop a well-functioning, sustainable finance market in Canada. We are also prioritizing investments in nature-based solutions, including plans to plant two billion trees over 10 years.

We are investing in climate-smart, natural solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to ecosystem loss, and we are committing new funding to support climate solutions for agriculture. In the coming weeks, the government will bring these and other elements together in a coherent, enhanced climate plan, providing Canadians with transparency as to how Canada will exceed its current 2030 Paris Agreement targets.

After the proposed plan is released, we will be consulting with our partners, indigenous peoples, provinces and territories, municipalities, industry and civil society. These consultations will inform the development of Canada's updated 2030 target.

I would like to thank the hon. member for her commitment to increased climate action. I look forward to working with the member, our colleagues and Canadians as we work towards bringing forward a plan that will enable Canada to exceed our 2030 targets and help set Canada on a path to achieving a prosperous net-zero emissions future.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, when the hon. member refers to our Paris targets, the number he is referring to is that from the third time that Stephen Harper weakened our target. It is the weakest of the three Harper targets, and we still have it five years after an election. I find this not just baffling but tragic.

The Government of Canada committed in Paris, in the COP decision document, that we would increase our 2030 target this year, in 2020, not merely before COP26 next year, but this year, when we have vanishing days left for us to fulfill our international obligations.

We have a short time left. The window closing on 1.5 degrees will close in the coming years, well before 2030. If it closes, it closes for good, and it closes for our children the opportunity to have a liveable world. The stakes could not be higher. The government has to do better.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, global greenhouse gas emissions need to decline rapidly over the next three decades according to scientific experts.

The Paris Agreement calls for governments around the world to take urgent and ambitious action on climate change to keep global warming well below 2 degrees and to pursue efforts to keep it below 1.5 degrees in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees in 2018. That report concluded that global emissions need to reach net zero around mid-century for there to be a reasonable chance of meeting the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees.

On November 19, 2020, the minister tabled the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability bill, which, if passed, would legally bind the government to a process to achieve net zero by 2050. It would make our 2030 target legally binding, and set five-year emission reduction targets to 2050 to improve accountability and transparency. We look forward to working with all the parties to pass this important legislation and strengthen our 2030 targets.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:32 p.m.)