House of Commons Hansard #70 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was targets.

Topics

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-12, since I am concerned about environmental issues.

My party is in favour of the principle in Bill C-12, but unfortunately the bill does not go far enough. We were off to a good start, but sadly, the government shows no ambition with Bill C-12.

I would like to point out, because it seems essential to me, that all countries that care about the environment are putting forward legislation that will set greenhouse gas, or GHG, reduction targets. Unfortunately, in Bill C-12 these targets are nowhere to be found. Through the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, my party introduced Bill C-215, which sets greenhouse gas reduction targets.

If you compare Bill C-12 against Bill C-215, you quickly realize that nothing in Bill C-12 holds the government accountable for meeting its net-zero emission targets. It contains nothing to make future governments accountable for their actions. However, that would be necessary. There are no target requirements.

I find it rather strange that Bill C-12 sets out intentions. I always have good intentions. I want to lose weight. I intend to do it, but, unfortunately, I do not. We need to set achievable targets. That is a fact, but we need to at least set some targets. Bill C-215 talked about a 30% reduction by 2030.

I spoke earlier about the lack of a control mechanism—other than the political parties, which is rather problematic—to let the government know, objectively and impartially, whether it is meeting its targets. This bill does not contain any such mechanism, unlike the bill introduced by my party.

The government was on the right track, but it did not go far enough. When I was thinking about it earlier, I wondered why the government would be so wishy-washy about climate targets. Often, when we talk about the environment, I think the biggest challenge is striking a balance between the environment and the economy.

For those with an interest in environmental issues, the 1987 Brundtland report introduced the idea of sustainable development and, for the first time, people tried to strike a balance between the environment and the economy. I think the Canadian government has a lot of work to do on that front.

Balancing the environment and the economy is challenging, but so is figuring out how to overcome national self-interest. That is something that often comes up. Every time we talk about climate change, we hear the same key phrase. It is something I often hear from my Conservative colleagues. They say, “Yes, but China and the U.S. are doing worse”, as though that clears us of all responsibility.

There are therefore two main questions. How do we overcome national self-interest? How do we strike a balance between the economy and the environment? These two questions lead me to the crux of the environmental issue in Canada. The problem, in a word, is oil.

The Canadian economy revolves entirely around the oil industry. The Quebec nation often pays the price of a national self-interest centred on the oil industry. If I am not mistaken, other than Norway, the Quebec nation is one of the only nations in the world whose economy is not based on fossil fuels.

We therefore need to make both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party aware of the fact that Canada's future does not lie in petroleum resources. The best example is what can be done with the forestry industry. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources held six meetings and was told by the main stakeholders in the forestry industry that it is probably the most promising sector in the fight against GHGs. We must make good use of the forest. It is probably the most promising sector.

The forest is a carbon sink. After 70 years, a tree begins to release the carbon it has sequestered all its life through a natural process. It will either be devoured by insects, or rot, or be consumed by fire. Therefore, we must collect this wood, which has sequestered some carbon, and make full use of it, something the federal government has never considered.

I will give an example that I have repeated ad nauseam for some time. Take the construction sector. If we replace a cubic meter of steel and concrete with wood, we can reduce CO2 emissions by between 1.1 tonnes and 2.1 tonnes. This would represent 18 tonnes of carbon sequestered in 20 cubic metres of wood used for every house that would be built in Quebec.

I mentioned the construction sector, but there are many other possible applications. Now, with what is known as the bioeconomy, we can replace all petroleum-based products and generate bioplastics and even the medical equipment that was in short supply during the pandemic.

One company, FPInnovations, managed to make masks out of wood pulp in just under six weeks. We now know that we can use moulds that are also made out of wood pulp to make certain types of masks that can replace the well-known N95 masks that have been in short supply during this crisis.

If the federal government wants to meet targets it should start by setting some. To meet them, simple measures can be put in place. In its recovery plan, the Bloc Québécois proposes using carbon footprint as a criterion for purchasing power in the federal government's procurement policy. That is entirely feasible and we could leverage that into support for the forestry industry.

I want to address another essential point. I talked about national self-interest and the fact that we must reconcile the economy and the environment.

During the period from 2017 to 2020, the federal government invested $24 billion in the oil industry. Out of that $24 billion, $17 billion was used to nationalize the Trans Mountain pipeline.

During that same period, the federal government invested $950 million in Canada's entire forestry industry. For Quebec, that means just $71 million a year. Out of that $950 million, 75% are loans. These are not net investments going into the forestry sector.

This is clearly a double standard. As long as we stick to the narrative of putting oil before technologies that would help us reduce our carbon footprint, we will have the same problem. I do not want to malign anyone, but I think that this situation might explain the federal government's lack of ambition when it comes to setting greenhouse gas reduction targets.

As I was saying earlier, we have a solution. The forestry industry is where the economy and the environment intersect. Everyone is talking about the huge potential for innovation in the forestry industry, but the Government of Canada has not committed to or invested in this solution.

Our other solution has to do with transportation electrification. The government has indicated that it plans to make transportation electrification one aspect of its recovery plan. Now, if I were unscrupulous, I would point out that this plan is mainly focused on the economy of Ontario, the only province that no longer provides rebates for the purchase of electric vehicles. I am not unscrupulous, though.

This may be a step in the right direction for Quebec and its expertise. We already have expertise in batteries and we are quite advanced when it comes to hydroelectricity. The possibility of transportation electrification is—

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I apologize, but time is up. The hon. member has five minutes for questions and comments.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Madam Speaker, I noticed that the member said there is not a whole lot to this. It is full of good intentions, but it is just a map with an end goal and no route described.

He would possibly agree with me on this point: Why would there need to be anything if this is being put in the hands of an outside advisory board that already has been established without any input and before even coming before this House for debate?

It is not to recommend, but to inform the government of the direction to go and to require the environment minister to respond to the board's annual reports, yet it is the Minister of Environment and Climate Change who is responsible to the House of Commons and to Parliament. There is no accountability here to parliamentarians from the environment minister or from this board. Is that a concern to the member?

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, I understand my colleague's concerns. Indeed, all too often the problem with fighting global warming is that, perhaps for political gain, some politicians will put economic sectors that are very harmful to the environment ahead of setting targets.

If we had an independent body that could give us objective, neutral guidance, it would surely make our job as lawmakers easier.

To that end, I would like to point out all the bad press our Conservative colleagues are giving the carbon tax. It is an essential tool that can help us fight greenhouse gases, but the Conservatives have a really trumped up take on the tax.

Sometimes politicians need to set aside partisanship, look at what problems we will have to deal with and listen to what science is telling us. Unfortunately, I do not think that is what Bill C-12 will do.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I have had the honour to represent the people of Vancouver Kingsway for some 12 years, which means I remember when Stéphane Dion was the environment minister and famously named his dog “Kyoto”. I cannot say how many different iterations of reducing carbon by so much by such a time I have seen; all I can say is that Canada's carbon emissions have gone up every single year that I have been in Parliament.

It seems to me that we need legislated targets if we are going to meet our Paris Accord commitments. I wonder what my hon. colleague thinks of that. As a means of dealing with the existential threat of climate change, should we set targets that are enforced by law, with annual reports to Parliament so that we can measure how we are progressing toward those targets?

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely. We need to set targets. That is in some way the point of the bill that my party introduced.

Let us recall the Montreal Protocol, which made it possible to fight the gases that were causing holes in the ozone layer. Political action was taken and the situation was successfully contained.

However, that takes political courage. We need targets, but we also need political courage, and political courage will come when the Government of Canada is able to turn its back on the oil industry.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to present my opinion in French. I completely agree with my colleague from Jonquière, and I thank him.

Greta Thunberg has said:

Carbon neutrality by 2050 is surrender. We have to have a first milestone year in 2025. What are his comments?

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The hon. member for Jonquière for a brief reply.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more.

First of all, I thank my hon. colleague, who is so kind and who always makes an effort to address us in French. It is a nice change, compared to some other members. I totally agree with her. There is an old adage in French about how one can never be too bold. I will not get into where it came from, but I am not seeing any boldness from the federal government at the moment. There is a consensus on this, and it is unfortunate.

Earlier I mentioned the two big questions: how to reconcile the economy and the environment, and how to put an end to this national self-centredness, with some refusing to act until others do. How do we fix this? For us, the answer is quite simple: We must get out of the Canadian oil economy. Until everyone is willing to take a hard look in the mirror, Alberta's economy will not improve and we will not achieve—

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I must interrupt the hon. member, because his time has expired.

The hon. member for Davenport.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON

Madam Speaker, it is an absolute honour to rise in this House to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport on Bill C-12, Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act.

Other than my constituents' very legitimate concerns about COVID-19, which has been the top issue for the past year, the main other thing they have written to me about has been climate action and a green recovery. They have really been pushing me to make sure that our federal government will not only meet our Paris accord targets and achieve net-zero by 2050, but that as we come out of COVID-19 and restart our economy, we also continue to commit ourselves to a green recovery and a carbon-neutral future.

As we look at this bill, it is important to understand its scope and what it actually sets out to do. We also need to consider it in the context of the things that our government is already doing to lower emissions and the many challenges that are still in front of us. As well, it is important to recognize that it is only one part, albeit an extraordinarily key part, of our government's climate action strategy.

For years many of us have urged our government to present a clear, credible, transparent climate plan to show Canadians exactly how our government intends to meet our Paris accord targets. That has been a very direct ask of many environmentalists and many people in general from the Davenport community.

I was absolutely delighted when, in mid-December, our Minister of Environment and Climate Change presented a plan in a report called “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy”, which basically outlined a number of policy changes that will get us way past our original 2030 targets. It lays out a number of things in our plan to cut emissions across a number of different sectors, including our homes and transportation systems, industry and natural spaces. It talks a lot about our price on pollution and our plan to increase that price and provide incentives around that, as well as how we are going to help increase the kind of rebates that Canadian families are receiving to cover their costs and to invest in reducing emissions. I could go on, as I am very proud of this report, which presents a plan. I really encourage everybody to read it.

Bill C-12 will ensure that we meet our targets. What exactly does it do? The bill, as it is written right now, sets out that national targets and plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada be put in place with the objective of obtaining net-zero emissions by 2050. The act requires the tabling and publication of targets, plans, progress reports and assessment reports. The bill also stipulates the content of milestone plans and, in the event of a failure to achieve a target, requires the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to publicly explain the reasons. There are also a number of other accountability mechanisms, including for the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development, supported by the Office of the Auditor General.

I am really pleased that we have laid this all out, which is important for us to do. I am really pleased that it is included in Bill C-12.

I will also mention that our first target is for 2030, and that there are also subsequent milestone years in 2035, 2040, 2045, with targets being set and emissions reduction plans established at least five years in advance of each of the subsequent milestone years. That is basically it, in a nutshell. I know we have heard a lot about this over the last few speeches.

I think it is important for us to articulate that since we were elected in late 2015, we have done a lot to protect our environment and to lower our emissions. We have put a price on pollution. We have invested over $60 billion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help Canadians adapt to climate change, primarily through investments in clean technology and infrastructure. We have also started taking some urgent action to ban single-use plastics. I know we are well on our way to protecting 25% of our land and water by 2025.

My hon. colleague, the member for Beaches—East York, mentioned to the House late last year when he was speaking on this bill that our government's actions between 2016 and 2019 have already put Canada on the path to reducing 2030 emissions by 25%, or 227 million tonnes. That is more than any Canadian government in history has done to date.

The net-zero emissions accountability act is an important step forward. I know it has been lauded by a number of groups, including Greenpeace, which has called it an important step toward holding governments accountable for meeting science-based climate targets. I was also pleased to see the Business Council of Canada lauded it, saying that clear guidelines, a predictable policy framework and a supportive investment in the environment will help businesses get to net zero faster.

While Bill C-12 is an excellent bill, Davenport residents have been calling me for the last little while to indicate that there might be some ways we can improve it. Therefore, I held had a number of meetings with groups such as Just Earth, Fridays for Future, Leadnow and Seniors for Climate Action Now, all of which are really amazing groups that have been talking to me. They have advocated for us to have a stronger emissions target by 2030 of at least 45%, with frequent progress reports over the next 10 years. They want to make sure that the accountability mechanisms are as strong as possible and that support for the offices of the environment commissioner and Auditor General is locked in place. They also indicated that they would love to see the advisory council and its recommendations be fully public and transparent. Those are just some of the very important changes and recommendations they have suggested that could improve Bill C-12. I wanted to make sure I put them on the record.

The other thing I want to mention, because it is so important to the people of my riding of Davenport, albeit it is not directly relevant to what is in front of us, is the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies as soon as possible. I know this is something that was articulated to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. He held a virtual town hall with residents from my riding, where he very clearly indicated to us that he is working on this. I really am so grateful to him and his unbelievable team for their hard work.

I also want to mention that in our fall economic statement, we have also reaffirmed quite a few investments to ensure that we do reduce our emissions and get ourselves on track to exceeding our 2030 targets and meeting our net-zero target of 2050. We talked about a historic $14.9 billion investment, federal funding for public transit and a huge investment of almost $3 billion to help homeowners make their homes more energy efficient. We have talked about planting over two billion trees to fight climate change. I know that our Minister of Natural Resources made an announcement about that. We have committed almost a billion dollars to restore a degraded ecosystem to protect our wildlife and improve land and resource management practices, among many other things.

Davenport residents have indicated unequivocally to me that this continues to be top of mind for them. I want to read something from Natalie Zed, who wrote: “I understand that decisions are being made in cabinet right now and in the Liberal government about how to invest over $100 billion in a green recovery and/or beyond. I'm writing with everything I have to ask you to do whatever you can for the approval of that investment. COVID is a minor problem compared to what climate change is already bringing, and we have only seen the beginning of it. We're in the midst of a civilization crisis and collapse and it's super important for us to be focused on this.”

I want to close by saying how proud I am of the healthy environment and economy plan. I am very proud of this bill, which if passed will set out the legally binding five-year milestones and set in stone our emissions reduction plan.

In the end, climate change is not a Liberal, Conservative, Green Party, Bloc Québécois or NDP issue, but a federal issue, and all parties across all levels of government must do their part to urgently tackle climate change. Our current and future generations are depending on us to take urgent action now. We cannot wait any longer. No more words; it is all about action now.

I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss this bill. I urge all of my colleagues in the House to move for speedy passage of the bill.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Madam Speaker, we all know that part of the Liberal plan to tackle climate change is the clean fuel standard. In the December 19, 2020 edition of the Canada Gazette, in the household and gender-based analysis impact study that was done, it states, “It is expected that increases in transportation fuel and home heating expenses would disproportionately impact lower and middle-income households.” It goes on to say that “single mothers are more likely to live in lower-income households, and may be more vulnerable to energy poverty and adverse impacts from increases to transportation and home heating prices.”

Through you, Madam Speaker, is the member explaining to single mothers in her riding that by introducing measures like the clean fuels standard, as well as the carbon tax, which would go up to $170 a tonne by 2030 as she indicated, it will drive up costs for them?

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON

Madam Speaker, the cost of living is top of mind for all Canadians right now. I will mention three things. One is the fact that U.S. President Biden has talked to our Prime Minister and has made a clean fuel standard a priority. It is something both our countries are going to be working very hard on, and that bodes well for us making things affordable in terms of transportation moving forward. Two, I have already mentioned the historic investments in public transit we are making and continue to make. These will continue to make it affordable for all income levels right across the country. The last thing I will mention is that we are increasing our climate change incentive over the years, and that will also be supporting families as we push very aggressively to meet our emissions targets.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention.

Bill C-12 is obviously a vital bill, and I am not the only one saying so. However, the bill is not ambitious enough and we need to go further. Once again, it is not me who is saying so, it is the mothers, grandmothers and aunts of the Mothers Step In movement who are worried.

I spoke earlier about the lack of transparency and the fact that the minister does his own evaluation. I also said that the objectives are lacking and the deadlines for these objectives are too far in the future. The bill talks about 2050, but we are talking about 2030, even 2025. The bill requires an evaluation every five years, but this could be done much more frequently, even every year if possible. That would enable us to truly evaluate the progress made and identify much more ambitious objectives for the future of our planet.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON

Madam Speaker, I believe this is a very bold plan. I also mentioned the healthy environment plan that came out in mid-December, which did a great job of outlining how we are going to meet our emissions target from a policy perspective and how we are going to be investing.

I have heard from Davenport residents that they want their targets in 2025 first. My understanding, from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, is that it is very difficult for us to do at this point in time. However, I believe we are considering, or are open to looking at, doing progress reports between now and 2028, which is the first time I think we have specified that we will do progress reports on our emissions targets.

It is very important for us to continue to try to improve, to be as accountable and transparent as possible and to be as aggressive as possible.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Madam Speaker, I am certainly hopeful the member for Davenport shows leadership within her own caucus to push the government toward that 2025 target. We know it is so important.

I met with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, which is putting forward its Delivering Community Power plan. It calls for the federal government to transition the Canada Post fleet to 100% renewable energy vehicles, to retrofit all Canada Post buildings to be more energy efficient, and so much more. I am wondering if she could talk about the support for the Delivering Community Power plan.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON

Madam Speaker, many people do not know this, but I am the daughter of someone who worked at Canada Post for almost 30 years.

We all play a role, at every level of government across all our different sectors, in reducing our emissions, and it is important for us all to be making those investments and doing all we can to play a part in meeting our 2050 net-zero targets.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join you this evening to talk about Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. We are debating it in the House. I am pleased to take the time to discuss it because I have some experience when it comes to environmental issues.

I always find it fascinating to hear my Bloc Québécois, Green Party or even Liberal colleagues try to demonize the Conservatives by saying that, unlike other Canadians across the country, members of the big Conservative family do not care about environmental issues

In my opinion, the big difference between our political family and the others is that we are pragmatic. We want to take concrete action. We do not want to simply come up with hare-brained ideas that we will never be able to implement.

I know what I am talking about because I used to be the mayor of Victoriaville, also known as the cradle of sustainable development. In fact, most environmental initiatives originated in my community, my municipality. Victoriaville was the first town in Quebec to bring in a recycling program and an organic waste collection program. Big city folks often like to lecture us a bit, but the fact is that this started more than 20 years ago in our regions. We just got right to it instead of shooting our mouths off and talking big, like the Liberal Party unfortunately does.

The Liberals introduced a bill on attaining net-zero emissions by 2050 that has no targets, when they are not even capable of meeting the Paris targets by 2030. There was agreement on the 2030 targets. Those were the targets set by the Conservatives and copied by the Liberals.

After five years of Liberal government, it is clear that, year by year, Canada is drifting farther and farther away from those agreed-upon targets. The Liberal government would have us believe that everything will be fine in 2050, but it cannot even hit the 2030 targets. It is actually getting farther and farther away from them.

The Liberals have really changed their tune over time. When they first came to power, they scrapped the public transit tax credit. A few weeks ago, their minister announced supposedly historic investments in developing public transit in Canada. When will those investments be made? Starting in 2026. Those investments will be made not by the next government, but by the one after that.

The government is once again refusing to step up and bear the burden of making tough decisions for the good of our environment. It announced that it would plant two billion trees over the next 10 years, but none of its budgets have earmarked any money for this, and not a single tree has been planted yet. The Liberals make all the right promises, but they do not follow through in ways that show Canadians we are serious.

My colleagues in the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party can attest to the fact that two weeks ago, the Conservatives tabled a motion calling for Canada to stop exporting its waste abroad. We need to be responsible consumers. We need to take action to improve the situation, recycle and educate the public at the grassroots level, with the goal of reducing consumption.

Adding value to products is good, but consuming less would already be better for the environment. The only party that voted against this Conservative Party motion was the Liberal Party. The Liberals voted against the motion because it was the Conservative Party that introduced it. In the Liberals' minds, that meant it could not be a good idea. However, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Green Party and the independent members voted in favour of our motion.

The reality is that the Liberal Party talks a lot but does not deliver. We can see that, because the bill has no targets, no binding measures for the government. What the Liberals are doing is putting it off until later and setting up another committee of so-called experts. However, the reports are there, and we know what needs to be done. We need to invest in innovation and research and find new ways to replace our oil-based products. That is true, but we still need that oil.

Attacking our jobs, singling out certain provinces and fighting with one another is certainly not the way to reach the consensus needed to make these changes. We will not solve our problem by banning the development of our own domestic natural resources, which create jobs and generate financial resources to pay for our social programs, balance a budget—which is easy for the Liberals, since they think budgets balance themselves—or simply deliver services, nor by consuming the natural resources of other countries, as we are doing now.

This debate about our jobs versus the development of our natural resources is a red herring. Instead, we should be trying to achieve net-zero emissions. Even the big oil and auto companies have joined the net-zero movement already. They have officially stated that they want to work with the government. However, the government must be willing to work with those industries, rather than opposing them and always attacking them.

This means the government needs to stop burying its head in the sand and stop taking people for fools. People know they are still using oil but, in many cases, there is no alternative to this natural resource.

I believe that we are dealing with a government that has never followed through on its promises and that is all talk and no action. It must walk the talk, an expression that Canadians and Quebeckers are familiar with. The time has come for the Liberals to start taking action so that we can fight climate change together, both here in Canada and around the world. We know that we must do this, and we all want to be successful.

In any event, Canadians and Quebeckers recognize the importance of protecting our environment and our natural spaces. Our party and our leader agree on this. Our most recent environmental platform is proof positive of that, because it had some of the same planks as the Green Party. I can say that. This shows that we agree on several elements, and that is why we should all work together toward this goal.

The Conservative Party tackled acid rain. Earlier, I heard my Bloc Québécois colleague say how we managed to do it. It was thanks to Brain Mulroney's government and his global leadership that we put an end to acid rain. We all worked together on legislation that did not attack jobs, but that implemented intelligent measures and rallied everyone around the same cause. These changes were accomplished under a Conservative government, and it was also under a Conservative government that the protection of our national parks was set in motion. We can continue to implement these types of measures. We must work together and move forward.

As the former mayor of Victoriaville, I have personal experience with this issue. People do not want restrictive measures. To make changes, we never imposed restrictive measures that cost money. We worked on education, awareness and information. We worked with youth, who helped us convince older people to change their habits. We worked in a constructive manner rather than fighting, which is the federal government's approach with provincial premiers.

I also want to remind the Liberal government and our Prime Minister that we were elected by the same people. In many provinces, these people chose to elect Conservative premiers and governments. These people are also working hard, but they are grappling with concerns about the economy and employment. The government needs to stop treating these things as mutually exclusive.

I sometimes hear people get upset about oil and gas pipelines, but the fact remains that there are already plenty of them. Pipelines are one of the safest and most effective ways to transport our natural resources across the country. This generates income through jobs and enables us to have good programs. It also enables us to reinvest this money in the transition towards what are known as greener or cleaner energy sources, such as hydroelectricity.

Quebec is lucky in that respect, but that is not the case—

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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, the member made reference, and I thought it was quite an amazing reference, that in essence, actions speak louder than words. He talked about not exporting garbage. In fact, that is the reality of what Stephen Harper did when he was the prime minister. He shipped containers of garbage through a private company to the Philippines. It became a political issue because the Harper regime was not able to deal with it, and we are the ones who cleaned up that mess that the Harper administration put us in. I would like to mention that comparison.

There has been a lot of confusion in terms of where the Conservatives are going to be on the price on pollution in the next election. We understand their current leader is having some second thoughts. Can he clearly indicate whether the Conservative Party supports a price on pollution?

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Madam Speaker, I am always surprised when Liberal members bring up decisions made by previous governments in very specific circumstances. When things go well, the current Liberal government takes all the credit, but when things go wrong, it always blames Mr. Harper and the former Conservative government.

The will is obviously there now, and the Liberal government had the opportunity two or three weeks ago to vote in favour of a bill introduced by the Conservative Party to stop Canada from exporting any more of our own garbage to other countries. I do not understand why my colleague wants to rake up stuff from six, seven or eight years ago, when we currently—

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

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

Order. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Bloc

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, what a great debate we are having today.

It is funny to hear my colleague say that we should not bring up long-ago governments when he himself talked about Brian Mulroney in 1988. I had to laugh a little when he said we should not talk about former governments.

Even so, my colleagues will be surprised to hear that I agree with my colleague. That is one for the history books: a Bloc MP agreeing with a Conservative about the environment. It is true, the Liberals have not kept their promises on the environment. We agree on that. Sadly, that is all we agree on.

During his speech, my colleague said something that resonated with me. He said we absolutely have to rely on research and development to replace petroleum products. I expect he had wood byproducts in mind, for one thing. In the same breath, he said that we cannot give up oil. The Conservatives are speaking out of both sides of their collective mouth. Unfortunately, they cannot get past that. Earlier today, some of them voted against Bill C-216 on supply management, and a minority of other MPs voted for it.

My question for my colleague is this: From 2006 to 2015, what did they do for the environment?

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my colleague, but some of what he said was pure demagoguery.

When I referred to the former prime minister, it was to refute the argument so often used by our opponents that the Conservatives have never done anything for the environment. I am not suggesting that we should not look to the past in order to prepare for the future, but decisions are being made today. Certain decisions must be made, and some governments are not making them.

Yes, I said we should prepare for the future and invest in research and development, but I did not say that I was in favour nor did I praise oil to the skies. I do not drink oil, but I do drink milk and that makes me happy.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, on the trash issue, it is interesting that the Liberals have still not paid compensation to the Philippines and are negotiating loopholes with the U.S. that would still allow for trash to be sent to third world countries. That should go on the record.

My colleague talked about Conservatives and their position on the environment. I was in this House when Prime Minister Stephen Harper called climate change a socialist plot. The Conservatives pulled Canada out of the Kyoto accord. The Conservatives have consistently wanted to expand fossil fuel infrastructure, which we all know is one of the leading causes of carbon emissions, and we are going to have to contain it if we want a serious chance of dealing with climate change.

How does he respond to the Conservatives' terrible record on climate change?

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Madam Speaker, I am astounded. I feel like I am listening to a Liberal member dredge up Stephen Harper once again in a discussion we are having in 2021, when we are all trying to work together.

It was under a Conservative government that greenhouse gases were reduced. The statistics are there. They can be found on the Government of Canada website. Right now emissions are increasing—