Debates of March 11th, 2021

Motion in Relation to Senate Amendments

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the government agreed to a motion to bring in a framework for palliative care across this country and has done nothing. We cannot compare palliative care to assisted suicide when it does not exist to the extent it should in this country.

If he wants to talk about money, I assure him that the government has been printing it faster than it can spend it and in these circumstances has not done anything to help those who are facing a bill that says they have no value.

I repeat what the young woman said in regard to this legislation, which is basically that there is no way any safeguards the government tries to put in place will work, because those who are mentally ill need the opportunity to live, not to be faced with a circumstance in which their government says, “You do not really have any value. Here is an option for you, and by the way, we will will not focus on mental health and palliative care the way we should.”

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have heard from thousands of my constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex who feel this bill, with its changes, is getting the elderly, chronically ill, disabled and those suffering from mental illnesses to choose death over choosing to live. I am wondering if the member agrees that Canada's laws on doctor-assisted death are putting undue pressure on the elderly, those in long-term care, or those who have a disability or a mental illness to choose death when it is not even their preference?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that question, because the truth of the matter is that there is not a focus in the Liberal government on valuing life. There is not a focus on valuing children, on valuing families, on valuing our elderly or on valuing our veterans.

There is no question that the amendment we brought forward today is the only way to fix this legislation. Mental illness should not be a means of getting assisted suicide. I am very disturbed, as are the thousands and thousands of Canadians that the government refuses to listen to.

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

Madam Speaker, the member indicated that the message being sent is that persons who are mentally ill are not needed, valued or worthy.

What I would reiterate for her is that this issue about persons with disabilities and their competence and autonomy was squarely before the court in Truchon. What the court squarely found in paragraph 681 of the decision is that there is a “pernicious stereotype” about persons with disabilities, and that is “the inability to consent fully to medical assistance in dying.” The decision goes on to say:

Yet the evidence amply establishes that Mr. Truchon is fully capable of exercising fundamental choices concerning his life and his death. As a consequence, he is deprived of the exercise of these choices essential to his dignity as a human being due to his personal characteristics that the challenged provision does not consider.

As such, he must be provided access.

The issue is clearly about providing value and dignity and worth to persons—all persons, including persons with disabilities—and ensuring that they have the competence and autonomy to make decisions, including very serious decisions, after careful consideration, about the timing of their passing.

I wonder if the member for Yorkton—Melville would like to comment on that aspect of the Truchon case.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, no, I am not interested in responding to the Truchon case, because we are long past that. We are at the place where the government has decided it is more than happy to go along with what the Senate has put forward and to give people with mental illness, on its own, the ability to choose assisted suicide.

That is not in the best interests of Canadians. It is not in the best interests of anyone who, in the case of mental illness, cannot be in a solid state of mind when they are considering assisted suicide.

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

It being 6:00 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from December 4, 2020 consideration of the motion that Bill C-232, An Act respecting a Climate Emergency Action Framework, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Climate Emergency Action Act

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill this evening. I have been following the debate in the legislature today, and I can honestly say that it was a tremendous debate.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-232, an act respecting a Climate Emergency Action Framework, sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. This private member's bill demonstrates the importance of climate action for all Canadians and highlights the urgency of the situation. I thank its sponsor for putting it forward in the House today and supporting our government's initiatives to address climate change.

Canadians know that climate change threatens our health, and it certainly threatens our way of life and our planet. That is why we need climate action and we need it now. That is what our government will continue to do.

Last September, the Government of Canada made a commitment in the Speech from the Throne to bring forward a plan to exceed Canada's 2030 target and to legislate Canada's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. We all know that net-zero emissions by 2050 is an ambitious target, but we also know that it is a necessary target, which is the reason we are moving forward.

Scientists tells us that if we are to keep global warming under a 1.5°C temperature increase and avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we must reach net zero by 2050. They have not given us options; they have really given us firm and solid direction.

Establishing this target in legislation has signalled our government's commitment to taking leadership and real action on climate change and to meet Canada's obligations under the Paris Agreement as well. It was with that goal in mind that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change introduced Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. We are all familiar with that act and what is being proposed in Bill C-12.

We know that the act is a key component of the government's plan to achieve net-zero emissions in the economy by 2050. It would put in place a clear framework for reaching net zero by requiring the minister of the environment to set national targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Those national targets would be set at five-year intervals: for 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045. The act would also contain an emissions-reduction plan that would encompass important information such as a description of the key emissions-reduction measures the Government of Canada intends to take to achieve the target for a particular milestone year. In addition, it would explain how the target and the key measures and strategies in the plan would contribute to Canada's achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Therefore, we are excited to be moving forward with Bill C-12 .

It would require progress reports. There would be investment reports to check on the progress that is being made and, of course, adjust course as needed along the way. The minister of environment and climate change would prepare at least one progress report relating to each of these milestones in consultation with other federal ministers. The report would also provide updates on the progress toward relevant targets and on the implementation of those federal measures, including any relevant sectoral strategies and federal government operational strategies described in the emissions-reduction plan.

The government must also provide an assessment report for each target, which is a very important piece of this as well. That report would contain a summary of Canada's official greenhouse gas emissions inventory for the relevant milestone year and a statement on whether the government had achieved its targets. As members can see, also included in that would be additional information about any adjustments that might have to be made.

The reason I am outlining all of this is that Bill C-12 provides for further accountability and transparency by requiring the minister to include information about why Canada did not meet the targets and what actions the Government of Canada is taking or will take to address those missed targets. It would also require that the report be prepared no later than 30 days after the government submits its official greenhouse gas inventory reports in accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and with the relevant milestone year, or to 2050. We recognize, as a government, how important transparency is and how essential it is to hold governments accountable, whether it is our government today or any government in future generations. All emissions reduction plans, progress reports and assessment reports would be made available to the public once they are tabled in Parliament.

To help ensure that Canadians have the best advice when it comes to the environment and climate change, we believe that Bill C-12 would establish those precedents for Canadians. Also, under Bill C-12, we will establish an independent advisory body. Indeed, back in February, just last month, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change announced the creation of this advisory body and nominated 14 Canadians to serve on that committee. They will provide the minister with advice on the most promising pathways to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, drawing on research and analysis and engagement. We expect that this advice will reflect the priorities and ideas that are being shared by all Canadians.

This evening we are dealing with private member's Bill C-232, an act respecting a climate emergency action framework. The bill aims to legislate government's commitments under the United Nation framework on climate change, which I just mentioned, particularly its 2030 GHG emissions reduction target, while also complying with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It would require the Minister of Environment to implement a climate emergency action framework in consultation with indigenous peoples and civil society, and to table in Parliament a report of the framework within one year and a report on its effectiveness within three years.

Very clearly, Bill C-232 echoes the priorities that our government has already established. That said, Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, would actually go even further than what is being proposed in the private member's bill before us, because it would provide a stronger framework for achieving Canada's climate change plan by fixing, in legislation, the government's ultimate goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. It would create a transparent engagement mechanism for setting those targets and developing the emissions reduction plan and assessing the progress made towards achieving these targets.

Bill C-12 would also create an independent advisory party that would provide advice on the most promising pathway to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, and it would give a reporting role to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainability, two components that the private member's bill we are debating this evening does not include.

Bill C-12 is new and an essential component of the government's overall approach to climate change. Recently, the Government of Canada released “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy” report, which is the federal plan to build a better future with a healthier economy and environment. This plan builds on the work that has been done to date and the efforts that are already under way. It will enable us to exceed our current 2030 emissions reduction target under the Paris Agreement.

While many of the themes presented in Bill C-232 echo the priorities our government has set out, we will not be supporting the bill, because we will be advancing Bill C-12, which, as I said, goes further. It encompasses an advisory committee, it would make the minister fully accountable and would establish broader regulations for transparency and the need for such transparency and disclosure to the public.

What I will say to the member is that I am encouraged to see her coming forward and supporting action on climate change and recognizing—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have had three bills introduced in the same session on achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, which I think sends a powerful message about how we need to do what is necessary to reach that goal.

The time has come to take decisive action to combat climate change. Canada needs climate change legislation that is rooted in the principles of good governance, guided by transparency, accountability, equity and, most importantly, science.

I commend and thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for this bill. I also appreciate the references to indigenous nations and the consideration given to indigenous knowledge. For example, we can learn a lot from New Zealand's experience of considering indigenous knowledge and incorporating the Maori people's good governance of the ocean into its policies. Government stakeholders worked in conjunction with Maori organizations and partners to develop the seven principles for ecosystem-based management for this shared governance.

I will now get back to Canada and the importance of protecting biodiversity in our fight against climate change. I cannot resist saying a few words about the large number of programs for indigenous peoples that involve promoting and developing projects that pollute and harm the environment instead of focusing on forward-looking and innovative plans for the future.

Relations between the Crown and Canada's first nations are a topical issue. Reconciliation is a profound and vital act. In order to achieve it, we must listen to first nations' environmental concerns and welcome their contributions. Nothing productive will come of always portraying their environmental concerns as those of opponents.

We recognize that indigenous peoples' knowledge of the land is extremely relevant in managing ecosystems and protecting biodiversity. In that regard, we must not just integrate the indigenous fact into a climate law for aesthetic reasons in order to ease our conscience. The intention must be firm and sincere. Experts have done a great deal of work, but unfortunately it has not translated into political action or legal commitments. The government could start by providing access to safe drinking water.

That being said, the Bloc Québécois agrees with the principles and objectives set out in Bill C-232. Just today, March 11, 2021, Quebec began honouring the victims of COVID-19, but let us look at what has happened over the past year.

Unfortunately, over the past year, the government has done a lot to help the fossil fuel industry, rather than to fight climate change.

According to the International Institute for Sustainable Development's 2020 report, subsidies for fossil fuels neared $5 billion.

The government made promises during the election campaign and once it was in power, but it has not acted on those promises. Whatever happened to the modernization of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? What about the two billion trees that are supposed to be planted? What have they done to intensify climate action? What is their plan to end government support for the fossil fuel sector?

The Bloc Québécois has always taken a strong stance on environmental protection and the fight against climate change and what must be done to reverse Canada's unfortunate trajectory. Why not show the people that their elected representatives are committed to fighting climate change by being honest about the facts and pragmatic about the solutions available to us? Does Canada not want to preserve what is left of its international reputation for its efforts to fight climate change?

Every economy around the world is struggling, and everything has been disrupted, but many countries are responding with determination and resilience. The Canadian government should pay close attention to countries that are making progress.

It will certainly be crucial for the current and future governments not to drag their feet. In the challenge we are facing, maintaining the status quo would actually be a step backwards. What we really need is to leap ahead.

That is why bills introduced by the opposition parties must be taken into consideration. In that sense, Bill C-232, much like its companion legislation, Bill C-215 introduced by the Bloc Québécois, would benefit just as much from being improved if it is to be considered a legislative framework. Bill C-232 falls somewhere in between, since it is neither an action plan nor a proposed legislative framework. It is a halfway point and needs to be completed. I say that as a point of constructive feedback.

Here are some examples of the clarifications needed.

Clause 4 states that the minister must develop an action framework in consultation with indigenous peoples and civil society. Providing for that kind of consultation is appropriate, but the details of that need to be specified. Public consultation should be supplementary to the consideration of expert opinions. It should include elements that are ultimately incorporated into framework climate legislation.

Dedicating a section to targets is good. The strength of the bill is that it includes the target, specifies it and clearly states that meeting the target is mandatory. It should also clearly outline the policies it proposes, and they must correspond to the area of federal jurisdiction and not that of the provinces. Environmental policy is largely the responsibility of the provincial governments, and successfully fighting climate change depends in large part on the policies of and actions taken by Quebec and the provinces.

Measures for transitioning to a green economy also need to be incorporated. The Bloc Québécois's green and fair recovery plan can be used as a model. I want to be positive and give members something to think about by raising the experience of the United Kingdom, which is garnering a lot of attention, and rightly so. The success of its climate legislation is measurable, and the outcomes have been analyzed. I want to share with my colleagues some important observations.

The success of the United Kingdom's climate change act has been attributed to several factors. However, experts have emphasized the benefits of including the action plan within the text of the legislation. Why? Because doing so lends legitimacy to the act, makes it easier to understand and increases the support of civil society, economic and social stakeholders, and political actors at all levels. That is what ensures long-term stability. The legislation thus becomes permanent and there is less risk of backtracking at the whim of successive governments.

To critics of such an approach who may fear that it would weaken the legislator's prerogatives, I will point out that it is possible to strike a balance between policy directions and the different levels of precision or flexibility of a plan. The United Kingdom has done it, and has even inspired other states to try to do the same.

A recent poll was done of people, mostly elected officials, who were involved in the legislative process. They acknowledged that the U.K. climate change committee owed its success to its independence. They noted that having directions and recommendations from a pool of experts on every legislative aspect contributed to a political consensus. Why? Because the work was done by independent voices and that makes it credible. The elected members found that what had been communicated allowed them to better understand the issues and come up with better solutions. They added that once impartiality was established and in the absence of political or other interests, collaboration and consensus followed.

The United Kingdom has seen its greenhouse gas emissions drop by 28% since 2010, while securing economic growth of nearly 19%. During the same period, Canada had similar results in economic growth, but saw its emissions increase by 3%.

Several observations can be made to show that Canada's climate governance is not working. A healthy climate governance, one that works and is proven to meet targets, requires projects to be assessed annually. Second, the government needs to be required to table a response to the annual report. Third, the interim objectives have to be set long in advance. Finally, the recommendations have to be evidence-based.

In closing, I want to say that, in a spirit of co-operation and working for the common good, a climate law needs to be ambitious. What is more, the government must not ignore what the opposition parties are saying. Let us get motivated. We will get there.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of Bill C-232. It is not lost on me that in the crisis of this global pandemic, perhaps the crisis of climate change has been lost. I have deep gratitude for my caucus colleague for Winnipeg Centre. She has recentred the conversation on catastrophic climate change and the impacts it is going to have, undoubtedly, on society in the years very soon to come.

The thought of guaranteeing Canadians a clean, safe, healthy environment as a human right seems so simple, yet time and again in the House we hear rhetoric from both sides, with consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments debating the merits of climate change. Time is running out. We know that. The youth across this country are telling us clearly that time is running out. Indigenous communities across this country are telling us clearly that time is running out, yet we hear from the Liberals a refusal to hear the calls from our youth.

I stand here today in the House of Commons a mere couple of feet away from what happened on October 28, 2019. A group of youth were arrested for occupying this space under the “Our Time” banner, recognizing that their futures were being gambled with by policies that were not meeting the size, scale and scope of this catastrophe.

We have heard about Bill C-12 here today. The Liberal government refuses to honour its commitments, legal frameworks and international agreements centred on consultation with indigenous communities. All levels of government are guilty of this. All parties have been guilty of this.

I am here today for those youth who were here, putting everything on the line for their futures. I am here today for the indigenous youth who led the protest at the B.C. legislature in support of the land defenders there. If we do not have a clear consultative framework that centres on our obligations to indigenous people across this country, then we know we are not meeting our obligations and our moral imperatives on the agreements that we profess to sign on to in the House. The idea of a right, for those living in Canada, to a safe, clean and healthy environment seems so simple, yet there has been only talk and no action. It is a dream deferred to a future date. We do not have the time.

The science at the interparliamentary committee on climate change has been clear. We have an opportunity right now, in this moment, to change course. If we do not do that, the cost will be far too great. If we do not intervene right now in these critical years, the impacts of catastrophic climate change will become irreversible. We have an obligation to future generations of the world. We have mortgaged their futures on a short-term extractory capitalist system that seeks to squeeze the lifeblood out of our natural resources and our earth.

I am deeply grateful to my hon. colleague for Winnipeg Centre for providing the House with the leadership and the framework to ensure that we have critical consultations in place, and that we meet our United Nations obligations on climate change. The government continues to commit to targets it has no real intention of keeping. It misses them again and again, and we are running out of time.

I am here today for the Water Walkers, and I think about the people who are leading the struggle locally in my city: Indigenous women who honour nibi, the water, and know that they, under the leadership of Grandma Josephine, walk the shorelines. I learned from their teaching that we should be granting our water, nature and air the same rights as we grant the corporations that have been polluting with impunity for far too long.

The idea that we can solve this by 2050 is too late. I have to share with the House the impacts, atrocities and environmental degradation of this planet. I feel that, when future generations look back at us in the House, they will know that we had a chance to do something different. They will read this bill and know that the opportunity was before us, yet it was not supported. It was not taken seriously, and the commitments were pushed down another 20 years.

By that time it will be too late, but the truth is becoming abundantly clear. The corporations that continue to degrade and pollute our world are going to be held to account. I will share with the House another thought. Maybe in the future, when they look at the size and scale of the impending wildfires and floods, and the ongoing diseases unleashed in pandemics, they might meet internationally and convene for real truth and reconciliation globally on climate change, like the Nuremberg trials.

These companies know the impacts and they know the science, yet they spend all of their time and their money to silence activists' voices and silence the science. It is clear that if we do not rise to this moment right now, we are in a significant, dire catastrophe. Climate change is threatening absolutely everything that we value.

We know that extreme weather is worsening, and that the resilience of our communities is constantly under threat. The future of our children and grandchildren depends on our actions here today. Globally we are being left behind, because other countries have a clear plan. They are sticking to their commitments. They know that we have to meet this plan by 2030. Bill C-12 does not do that.

I have sat in the House and listened to Liberals and Conservatives boast, brag and debate about how many pipelines they can build and buy, and how much they can continue to extract. I have been in the House when we have debated the failures of these successive governments to have meaningful, free, prior and informed consent in the legal fiction that is Canada. In unceded territories we have a legal obligation to deal with the rights holders of these lands, and indigenous rights in this country are inherently tied to land rights.

We have a strong, brilliant indigenous woman who has come to us with a private member's bill that lays out, as they have already identified, commitments they have already made. They talk about consultation, when the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre stresses that there can be no reconciliation absent of justice. To vote down this bill today would be a clear signal that the government is not committed to its obligations, because these are frameworks that are already clearly laid out.

Anything short of supporting this, and any conversation about kicking this obligation another 20 years down the line, will be remembered by the young people who were arrested here, the young people who were arrested on the steps of the legislature in B.C., and the young people who take to the streets for Fridays for Future. They are watching. The question is, when this is done, when this vote is over and when our time here in the House is finished, what are members of the House going to tell them? What are they going to have to say?

We will be supporting this bill. I will be able to look my son in his eyes and let him know that we did everything we could to stop this.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton Centre for his powerful words. I also want to begin by thanking our colleague from Winnipeg Centre for bringing forward this bill, which makes such an important contribution to a conversation about an issue that many of us feel is the most critical issue facing not just our country, but our planet.

I want to acknowledge that I am speaking today from the unceded lands of the Wet'suwet'en people here in my home community of Smithers, British Columbia. It is such an honour to speak to this bill at this juncture in time when we are searching for answers so desperately. After decades and decades of knowing about the severity of the climate crisis and after so many false starts, the sad fact is that, as a country, we are failing. All of our actions over all of that time have had so little impact.

I started becoming concerned about the climate crisis as a teenager. Now I am old enough to have teenagers of my own, yet so little has been done. Time and time again, we have made commitments, and set targets, timelines, and dates. Time and time again, we have failed to act in a concerted and consistent enough manner to realize the goals we have made for ourselves.

What Canada has shown is a commitment to building and expanding the fossil fuel infrastructure of this country. This has erased so much of the progress we have made through things like energy efficiency and clean energy production. With so little time left on the clock, we are still searching for ways to mobilize our government and fight the climate crisis, this climate emergency, with the seriousness and dedication it demands from us.

Canadians, especially young Canadians, and my colleague spoke so eloquently to this, want some mechanisms to break this pattern of complacency and apathy. They want to hold today's decision-makers to account for their promises, not at some distant date well outside the time horizons of our political process, elections and political calculuses, or the investment horizons of the private sector. After decades of failure, we know that does not work. What Canadians want is regular, binding, short-term and enforceable accountability measures that hold today's leaders to account.

This bill before us, Bill C-232, has a number of strengths. To me, its greatest strength and most important contribution is that it centres our work on the climate crisis and it centres in that work the rights of indigenous people. This is such an important thing to bear in mind and keep at the centre as we go forward together.

It was good to see in the government's own accountability legislation, for all of its flaws, a passing reference to the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. By comparison though, Bill C-232 calls not only for the full involvement of indigenous people in the creation of a climate emergency action framework, but it also calls for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to ensure that the framework upholds all of the provisions of the U.N. declaration and that it specifically takes into account indigenous knowledge and science.

Reading this bill and reading, in particular, the clauses around the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People made me think of all the indigenous nations in northwest B.C., this incredible part of our country that I am so deeply honoured to represent in this House. Indigenous people in northwest B.C. are on the frontline of climate impacts and the changing climate is affecting so many aspects of their daily lives.

Thinking about our environment and thinking about the resources and goods produced by this bountiful place, there are few species that are more iconic than wild salmon. All five species of wild salmon swim up our rivers from the ocean every single year. In the fall, if someone goes on social media, they will see so many photos of smiling people processing salmon, drying salmon, smoking salmon, sharing recipes, and sharing techniques and traditions that have been handed down generation after generation.

It is at the very centre of the way of life in northwest B.C. However, with warming ocean waters and ocean acidification, the introduction of invasive species and droughts affecting spawning channels, things are looking very precarious for this iconic species.

I spoke today to Walter Joseph, the fisheries manager at the office of the Wet'suwet'en, and he spoke about the challenges in the tributaries where the salmon spawn, but what really has Walter worried, is what is happening in the ocean. He described the ocean as a black box. When the salmon go out to the ocean we do not know what happens. What we do know is that, for so many wild salmon stocks, the numbers are declining every single year, and we know that climate is having a huge impact on that.

On Haida Gwaii, we have seen tremendous die-offs in the yellow cedar, a tree species that is so critical to the Haida people. We know from work done by the University of British Columbia that this is a direct result of low winter precipitation and warmer temperatures. A team from the University of Victoria also found that sea level rise on Haida Gwaii is greater than anywhere else along our coast.

In the eastern part of our region we have seen the mountain pine beetle ravage our forests. We have seen years with extreme wildfires and 2018 was one of the worst years on record for wildfires. It left thousands upon thousands of hectares scorched. It left communities evacuated. It burned buildings from Fort St. James and Burns Lake all the way to Telegraph Creek in the northern part of this beautiful region.

Speaking of Telegraph Creek, I wanted to call to mind a young fellow who is really remarkable. His name is Montay Beaubien-Day. He is a 13-year-old member of the Tahltan and the Wet'suwet'en nations. When Monty saw his family's ranch in Telegraph Creek burn in the massive wildfires of 2018, it inspired him to join with other young people, such as Haana Edenshaw from the Haida nation and 13 others from across the country in a lawsuit against the Government of Canada for failing to attack the climate emergency.

At the heart of that suit brought forward by these young people is a deep-seated frustration with Canada's inaction on the climate emergency. The plaintiffs went to court because they wanted this country to be accountable for its promises and to take responsibility for the future it is handing their generation. How did we get to the point where our children, the young generation, has to take the country to court to ensure that they inherit a basic semblance of a livable future?

Indigenous communities are not just on the front lines of climate change when it comes to impacts, but when it comes to solutions as well. I have been so inspired by the work done by the Heiltsuk's climate action team on the central coast led by climate action coordinator. They are engaging residents and creating a community energy plan grounded in the Heiltsuk community's needs. Their plan is to reduce dependency on fossil fuels, bring the community back in line with Heiltsuk values and laws, improve the health and safety and create a green economy for the Heiltsuk people. Their aim is to have 129 heat pumps installed by the end of March. They are for almost one-third of the homes in their community and they will reduce emissions by as much as five tonnes per household.

I think of the Nuxalk Nation, which is also on the central coast. Their clean energy initiative is focused on building a run of the river hydro project which will be able to reduce the Bella Coola Valley's diesel consumption by up to 80%. On Haida Gwaii, the Swiilawiid Sustainability Society is engaging island residents, especially youth, in a conversation about a clean energy future.

I spoke with chief councillor of Skidegate, Billy Yovanovich, a couple of summers ago. His community has installed 350 heat pumps. The Haida are leading in so many other ways. Many of these communities are working hard to take action on climate change and these are not big communities. They are not metropolitan centres.

These are small villages, many of them with only a few hundred residents, yet they understand inherently that they have a responsibility to be a part of the solution. They are taking responsibility for their part of the challenge, and Canada needs to have their backs. The impacts we are seeing will not slow without our country also taking responsibility and doing its share. The sad truth—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is truly an honour and a pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-232, an act respecting a climate emergency action framework. This bill, which has been tabled by my good friend and colleague from Winnipeg Centre, is such an important bill, and I want to thank her at the outset for her important work in standing up not just for indigenous peoples but for all Canadians and their right to have a clean, safe and healthy environment.

This bill would provide a critical framework, which is lacking right now, for a transformative climate action policy. It is framed around a green new deal that would make sure that all climate action initiatives would comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as ensure the right of all those living in Canada to have a safe, clean and healthy environment and that we will uphold our responsibilities to future generations. This bill provides for the development of a framework that we desperately need when it comes to climate action.

We know that the Government of Canada has failed to meet every single climate target it has put out. In fact, as the government tabled recent legislation, it also failed to give people the confidence it is going to deliver a plan in a timely fashion. This is based on the fact that we are not even going to see a progress report on how we are doing until 2028 and that there is no milestone target for 2025.

We heard from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2018 that we had only 12 years to reduce emissions to pre-2010 levels, meaning a reduction of over 40% by 2030, yet the Government of Canada still has no plan and has not included indigenous people.

This bill is absolutely critical as an accountability tool for those who are most impacted by climate change. It explicitly outlines the importance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to Canada's climate response and it would require the government to consult meaningfully with indigenous peoples and communities and civil society.

Canadians are exhausted. They are tired of governments committing to targets like the ones I cited earlier and then missing them again and again. We are running out of time.

I want to talk a bit about what is happening in my riding and the impact climate change is having on indigenous peoples in the communities I represent.

In three of the last five years, we have had record floods that have impacted wild salmon, of course, and impacted the communities of the Tseshaht people and the K'Omoks First Nation, with both the Somass and the Puntledge rivers breaching.

We had a drought in 2014, and then it rained just in time in August. We were afraid we were going to lose all our wild salmon, which is a critical food source for indigenous people, and it is not just food security; their culture is centred around it, and of course their economy. Wild salmon is critical to their survival and who they are. Where I live, the Nuu-chah-nulth are salmon people, so this is very important to indigenous peoples, who are going to be most impacted by climate change.

We saw the acidification in Baynes Sound, which impacted the Qualicum people and their food security with the shellfish they rely on. My good friend Chief Moses Martin, from the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, often talks about the importance of investing in restoration, in science and indigenous knowledge, of listening to indigenous knowledge, but he cites that the most urgent pressure right now on wild salmon is the warming of oceans due to climate change.

We know our oceans are a carbon sink and that 90% of carbon right now is being stored in our oceans, which are warming right now and making things more difficult. In fact, Humboldt squid, which is normally from California, landed on our shores in Tofino just a few years ago. It is mind-blowing to see the kinds of shifts that are occurring because of climate change. Of course, there are also the wildfires we have seen throughout British Columbia.

Youth are coming forward urging us for changes. We have all been on marches with youth against the impacts of climate change and them demanding action. We cannot wait. We heard from my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley about the impact this is having on the children in his riding, and on my children.

I was really inspired by Ben Mason and Lister de Vitré, who live in my riding in Cumberland, British Columbia. They have been going around the community, to the Cumberland council, to the local legion and to local groups talking about new ways for economic growth, social responsibility and environmental safety. They are asking for a green new deal centred around indigenous values and knowledge. They want to see emissions cut by half by 2030, but right now we do not have the framework in place to do that.

As Ben Mason said, doing nothing is not an option. The way the government is moving forward without a plan and without the framework in place being proposed by my good friend and colleague from Winnipeg Centre, we are abandoning that generation. This is absolutely unacceptable, because doing nothing cannot be an option for them. We are their voice. We are responsible for their future.

I know there has been a lot of discussion about the cost of investing in climate change. I think about my good friend, the late chief of Hesquiaht, Richard Lucas, who fought so hard to get his nation off of diesel energy and get a hydro project into his community so it could do its part when it came to climate change. However, it also makes economic sense in the long term. We need to continue to listen to indigenous people in our communities who have the knowledge and the wherewithal to get us there.

Members have heard me speak repeatedly in the House about the cost and impacts of climate change. When I started as a member of Parliament, climate impacts were costing the Canadian government about $900 million a year. Now it is over $5 billion in not even six years. The PBO projects we will be running climate emergency costs between $21 billion and $43 billion by 2050. Therefore, spending money right now, supporting indigenous communities and bringing everyone together under a framework to tackle climate change makes economic sense as well.

I share this with the House as the critic for economic development for the federal NDP because it makes economic sense to do that. We cannot leave people behind. We know indigenous people are constantly being left behind. This is the opportunity for us to not only walk together, but to centre our framework and our plan around indigenous people.

I think about my friend Carol Anne Hilton, who is the founder of the Indigenomics Institute. We need to listen to the wisdom of indigenous women, who have ideas on how we can move forward when it comes to climate change and working with indigenous peoples. We need a plan that honours our international commitments and obligations to address this climate emergency. We owe this to our youth. We need a just transition to a green economy that brings workers along, moves away from fossil fuel subsidies and invests instead in a green economy.

Our party has been fighting for this for a long time. I think about the late Jack Layton and his climate accountability bill that he tabled back in 2006. We are ready to work with the government and the Senate to pass this bill now, to take the action that is absolutely necessary.

Canada is being left behind as many countries are moving forward, even right-leaning governments such as in Britain, Germany and Japan. They understand the economic opportunity as well. We need to do this, ensuring we do it with indigenous peoples and respecting them under the framework among others. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples must be at the centre of our plan. Right now we have no plan. We need this plan to be in place. We need the government to follow its words with respect to supporting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This is the government's opportunity to engage in meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples and accommodate the concerns raised across Canada, including its failure to obtain free prior and informed consent. This has to be addressed.

Once again, I thank my colleague.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleagues, particularly from the New Democratic Party, whose wisdom and power today pierce my heart and gives me hope.

It is my pleasure to speak on my private member's, Bill C-232, the climate emergency action act.

We have international commitments to fight the climate emergency and to uphold human rights. This includes the UN Convention on Climate Change, the Paris agreement and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Bill C-232 would uphold these international agreements and would recognize the right of all Canadians to a safe, clean, healthy environment as a human right.

More than 100 countries in the world have recognized the human right to a safe, clean, healthy environment in their legislation and/or constitution. Instead of building more pipelines and investing in companies around the world that violate indigenous rights and hurt Mother Earth, it is time for Canada to follow their lead.

I know many people in the House will shamefully vote against this legislation at a time when we are in the middle of a climate crisis, and we see violent attacks on our Mother Earth. Everything we value is at risk.

Exploitive resource extraction companies continue to contribute to the ongoing genocide and an epidemic of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, as noted in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

The exploitation of our Mother Earth continues to violate the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples and all peoples across these lands we now call Canada.

Indigenous communities and nations continue to be denied the right to traditional land-based practices, the use and management of their own territories, while other human rights to housing, clean drinking water and health go unmet.

Even the Canadian Paediatric Society is raising the issue of climate anxiety being experienced by young people, who are the front lines, fighting to save our earth.

The government introduced Bill C-12, but it is not nearly good enough. In fact, it is a slap in the face to science and will not allow us to meet climate targets.

Bill C-232 proposes a framework for developing a made-in-Canada plan to address the ever-more pressing climate emergency, while it offers a clear strategy for kick-starting our country's green economic transition and rapidly reducing our emissions, while also leveraging this moment as an opportunity to right the wrongs of our colonial past and address violence faced by BIPOC communities in our country.

Despite the opportunity that we have before us, I sense that most members here today will vote no to Bill C-232. Before they do that, I hope they will consider what is at stake: every single thing we know and value; our Mother Earth; our health and wellness, and even the existence of future generations; our air quality; our oceans and coasts; water and food security; more fires, hurricanes and droughts; the further displacement of indigenous peoples, BIPOC and coastal communities; and even an increase in future pandemics. To turn down this opportunity in the middle of a climate crisis and at a time when we need to plan for post-pandemic economic rebuilding is shameful.

I ask the members of the House to think about how history will remember us in relation to this legislation. The science is clear about the actions we must take right now to avoid the worst impacts of a runaway climate crisis. This must be done while respecting the human rights of indigenous peoples and all peoples of the world.

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

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 invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I respectfully request a recorded division on my colleague's bill, Bill C-232.

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

Pursuant to an order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 24, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), and of the amendment.

Criminal Code

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

Today will be a historic day for Canada, a day that will be looked back on for decades to come as a day of infamy for the rights of vulnerable, disabled and mentally ill Canadians. Years from now, our country will be rocked by a political scandal when it is revealed how tens of thousands of vulnerable Canadians ended their lives through medical assistance in dying. We will discover how many of these vulnerable Canadians, whose deaths were not reasonably foreseeable and who suffered from depression and other mental health challenges, were allowed to end their lives with little to no safeguards.

Righteously angered families will demand justice from the government. They will demand parliamentary inquiries and they will fight through the courts to reveal the truth that, for decades, the government failed to support vulnerable Canadians and, instead, allowed them to end their lives in the absence of real assistance. On that day, a prime minister will stand across the way in the House to give a tearful apology for the lives of so many lost as a result of the Liberal government's negligence. Parliamentarians will vote for serious reform to affirm the lives of vulnerable people and reinstate firm restrictions to protect the rights of the disabled and mentally ill. Together on that day, we will vow never again to stand idly by and let legislation pass in the House that would put vulnerable lives at risk.

The vote tonight will determine whether that is the bleak future this country will have, and today we have a choice, as parliamentarians: Do we stand up for the rights of disabled Canadians, those suffering with mental health challenges, or do we vote for radical legislation that will imperil the lives of many of them? Tonight I will vote with a clean conscience knowing that I have done my duty to uphold the rights and dignity of Canadians, and I urge MPs in the House to look deep into their consciences and ask themselves if they want history to remember them as those who went along and voted for this travesty.

Some members of the House may scoff at my claims, but if they will not take it from me, they should take it from the very people whose lives are being held in the balance because of this vote. They should take it from those in the disability community who have been speaking vocally about the pressure they face from society to end their own lives. They should take it from suicide survivors who know that under this legislation, their lives would have ended before they could recover and live fulfilled lives. The Liberal government likes to praise itself for its deference to the experts, but in this case, it is kowtowing to special interests who are pushing a radical agenda.

If the Liberals really wanted to craft a bill that reflected what the experts are saying, they would heed the words of Dr. Sonu Gaind, the former head of the Canadian Psychiatric Association. I will note that Dr. Gaind is live-tweeting tonight's proceedings. He has raised the alarm that doctors under this legislation, many of whom are not equipped to make judgments on whether a patient with mental health issues will be able to recover, will also be given the power to grant death to these patients. He has raised serious concerns about the motivations of this legislation that seek to grant more autonomy for privileged people to end their lives, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, seriously risk further marginalizing the lives of those who do not have the privilege of being able, of having a sound mind or of having access to the best mental and physical life supports.

He has raised the alarm that nowhere has anyone considered the risk of this legislation for those who are suffering with suicidal ideations. Where are the protections for those contemplating suicide? We recently commemorated International Women's Day and I became aware recently that women are twice as likely to receive medical assistance in dying and twice as likely to attempt suicide. What analysis has been done to ensure that women, particularly disabled women and those suffering with mental health challenges, will not be marginalized by this legislation? I think this can be said of a lot of racialized communities and others as well.

Disability groups have pointed out that, in a cruel irony, today is the 11th anniversary of Canada's decision to adopt the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Did the government plan this slap in the face to the lives of disabled people who struggle every day to live their lives and who will now soon live with the added struggle of the constant pressure to seek assistance to end their lives?

This year, of all years, there is no excuse for ignorance when it comes to the plight of those suffering mental health challenges, the disabled, and those who are contemplating suicide. We have seen the significant impact that suicide is having on our society. In some cases, death by suicide has outstripped deaths from COVID-19. In a year when we have learned so much about the gaps in assistance and its fatal consequences, how can we move forward with this out-of-touch and radical legislation that seeks to make it even easier for vulnerable people to receive death? The situation that we have been placed in, as parliamentarians, in response to these proposed amendments from the Senate, is precarious.

Canadians are still adapting to the groundbreaking decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter case. They are still grappling with the subsequent legislation passed in the last Parliament, which legalized medical assistance in dying. Now with the Truchon decision, we have been called to enact new changes less than five years into the coming into force of the previous medical assistance in dying legislation. If that were not enough, now we are being asked by the Liberal government to go even further than the Truchon decision, which did not even consider mental illness as an exclusive justification for seeking and being granted medically assisted death, and we are being called on now to pass this legislation in a rushed manner.

I suspect, and I know in my riding, that if we ask the average Canadian if they want medical assistance in dying for minors or for those solely with a mental illness, we would receive a resounding no; yet, the overwhelmingly Liberal dominated Senate has taken it upon itself to push the agenda of special interests forward, to the detriment of vulnerable peoples. It was not that long ago that the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to a medically assisted death. The Carter decision, I believe, was in many ways a deviation from the previous law, but today, to many, it may seem quite conservative because, at least in that case, the courts had a desire to place clear parameters around this novel practice.

It is clear to me that the Minister of Justice wants to implement a radical agenda that would almost see euthanasia legalized for every occasion. I think he said as much in his vote when he voted against the previous legislation. The Liberals did not feel that Carter went far enough. They did not feel that Truchon went far enough. They could not get a pass through the House, so they got a pass through the Senate. The justice committee did not contemplate mental health, and inasmuch as the committee did contemplate mental health the testimony it heard advised against including mental health.

There are so many Canadians who are going to be devastatingly hurt by the recklessness of this legislation, and Canadians have not had an opportunity to fully pass judgment on this legislation. When we have an election in the next few months or years, we need the government to stake out a clear position on where it wants to go with euthanasia, before Canadians go to the polls. I do not recall any party, in the last election, putting forward a policy that said it wanted to seek mental illness inclusions in the medical assistance in dying regime. The government does not have a mandate from Canadians to pass this radical legislation.

It is time to be on the right side of history and stand with vulnerable Canadians against this dangerous and radical legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, by way of clarification, first, the constant pressure that the member referred to simply does not exist. There is no evidence anywhere in this country of any discipline or criminal prosecutions against any medical practitioner in the entire history of MAID's being available the last five years.

Second, the notion of the impact on the vulnerable would be addressed by one of the Senate amendments that we are proposing to adopt, which is to collect race-based data and data on persons with disabilities.

Third, respecting the issue of the courts' never having dealt with the issue of mental illness, while it not addressed squarely in Truchon, it was addressed in a case that comes out of that member's province, the E.F. case, through the Alberta Court of Appeals, which found that mental illness should be a condition for which MAID is made available.

Would the member opposite agree that the community of persons with disability is not a monolith? Chantal Petitclerc, the senator who sponsored the bill, is a person with a disability. Steven Fletcher, a former Conservative cabinet minister, is a person with disability. Both have spoken eloquently, as have the litigants in the Truchon case, about the need to ensure that their autonomy and their competence is respected.

Would the member agree with that statement?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think it is incredibly sad that the hon. parliamentary secretary would discount the testimony, the views and deeply held beliefs of so many disabled Canadians. I would just say that it is easy to claim that there is no evidence when the government has never set up any regime to collect evidence that would suggest there are abuses happening. The government is not looking for abuses, and so it claims that these do not exist. It is time for the government to start putting in a regime that would hold every member in this profession accountable so that we could get the facts and the data.

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

Madam Speaker, does my colleague not find it inconsistent that when considering the Senate amendments, the government ruled that the advance consent one was beyond the scope of the bill, even though it had put some advance consent measures in the bill? Moreover, it then decided that mental illness was acceptable to include as not out of the scope of the bill when that had not even been mentioned originally.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, my thanks to the member for her thoughtful question and her advocacy on this issue. I guess that is something we should be thankful to the government for, that it actually found some aspect of the Senate's amendments objectionable.

Frankly, I think that a political game is being played here. The Liberals have claimed that Conservatives have been obstructing debate and that they had to force this closure. The fact is that Canadians have been caught unaware by the government's radical changes of adding mental illness to this. As Conservatives, we are only standing up for the right of Canadians to have time to actually digest this legislation and the radical new changes that the government is including. Canadians have only been given a couple of weeks to digest what is literally life-and-death legislation.

The Liberals like to say that the Conservatives are holding this up, but the fact is that they were trying to sneak this in in the dead of the night, and we are not going to let them do it. If I can judge by the hundreds and thousands of emails I am receiving from Canadians, who are furious about this, we are only hitting the tip of the iceberg here and Canadians need more time to review this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, the reality of the situation here is that we did ask for more time. We asked the Conservative Party last week. I stood in this place right here and asked on three occasions to sit until midnight to have a healthy debate on this very, very important issue, and the Conservatives routinely voted against that.

The Conservatives did not want to continue to debate this issue, so when they claim that we not interested in debating this and are playing tricks and games and all of that stuff, the reality is that it is the Conservatives who are. The leader of the opposition said in a National Post article just two weeks ago that the Conservatives were ready to work day and night to get the job done, to get legislation through.

Here we have a piece of legislation that we are mandated to complete by a certain date by a superior court and are up against deadlines, and we are asking the Conservatives to stay late and to work overtime to get it done, and they have refused to do it.