Debates of April 27th, 2021

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

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

Madam Speaker, in December of last year, the government, without any consultation with provinces, said that it would raise the carbon tax to $170 a tonne, after it promised it would not do that in the 2019 election. Then, on Monday of last week, we had a budget that said it would increase the targets to 36%. Late last week, we heard about a range of 40% to 45%, and the minister specifically cited that the methane regulations may be a target for helping to bridge the gap.

Does the member find that the government has any credibility when it comes to working with the provinces or does he just simply not trust it with its plans on the environment?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very easy to say no, because the government has failed on so many attempts. These are nothing more than just election promise words for the Liberals to say, “Don't worry, we're going to have a plan, keep putting faith in us. and trust us.” That does not build any confidence whatsoever nor does it guarantee that they will meet any of these emission targets. All they are doing is throwing out numbers, hoping people will believe them.

No, I do not believe the Liberals have a plan that will reach any of these targets to which they are trying to get.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to finally be able to speak to Bill C-12, the climate accountability act to reach net-zero. It was introduced in November, and now we find ourselves with a time allocation. This really does need to be debated in this place.

I know how very carefully the parliamentary secretary and the minister, when they speak of all parties in this place ready to support this bill, somehow do not mention the Green Party of Canada, the party that is known and trusted by Canadians, more than any other, to put climate at the centre of what we do to ensure sustainability and that future generations have a hospitable climate, one that will sustain the human civilization going forward.

Therefore, when we hear the words “climate accountability act” and “net-zero by 2050”, we think they really do sound good. I know a lot of people will be stunned to realize that I, as someone who has worked on the climate issue for as long as I have, starting in 1986 on the early stages of negotiating the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and being at the Rio Earth Summit, and so many other conferences I do not even want to go back and remember them all, I am struggling with how I am going to vote on this bill. How is it that I could think that it could be dangerous?

I will explain how that is, and I will make my comments in two parts. The first will look to the science. This is all about the science. We have to get it right. There are such things as carbon budgets, which are not included in this legislation. We know that the Liberals are talking about net-zero by 2050.

Let me reference for a moment Greta Thunberg. We all know she is a very dedicated climate activist. Greta Thunberg says net-zero by 2050 is “surrender” because it gives politicians the illusion that we have time, we have a couple of decades, we can work toward this and we can figure it out. That is not the case anymore.

Let me quote someone the Liberals will have heard of. In his book Value(s): Building a Better World for All, Mark Carney explains carbon budgets probably better than anyone I have ever heard. On page 273 of the book, he writes, “The carbon budget to limit temperature rises to below catastrophic levels is rapidly being exhausted. If we had started in 2000, we could have hit the 1.5°C objective by halving emissions every 30 years. Now, we must halve emissions every 10 years. If we wait another four years, the challenge will be to halve emissions every year. If we wait another eight years, our 1.5°C carbon budget will be exhausted.”

How can we have a climate accountability act that has its first milestone year at 2030? Clearly, that is too late.

I would like to share a quotation from French President Emmanuel Macron. This quote is from a speech he delivered at last week's Earth Day summit hosted by U.S. President Joe Biden.

Here is what he said: “We have to drastically increase everyone's targets if we want to achieve the 1.5-degree objective.... 2030 is the new 2050.”

They cannot get much clearer than that: 2030 is the new 2050. We have legislation here that tells us we will be all right, we will have our first milestone year in 2030. That is past the time of any accountability for the current government and past any accountability for probably the next one too. What we need to do is make this bill work.

I think it can be fixed, but I am very worried because the Minister of Environment and Climate Change asked me and the Green Party to propose amendments back in December. We have proposed the key thing, and without consulting Parliament, without waiting until we got to second reading and committee, he has already negated one of the key things that needs to be fixed in this bill.

Turning now from the science to the policy, there are climate accountability acts in about 12 countries around the world right now. The gold standard is the law the U.K. brought in in 2008. It set up an expert, independent, arm's-length group, a climate accountability institute that actually advises government as a whole, not just the minister and not just a multi-stakeholder group, but an expert group with arm's-length capacity.

That was one of my key recommendations to the minister, to make sure that the group advising the minister is an expert group made up of scientists. Without waiting to go to committee to see if my amendment might pass, we now have an appointed group, and it is a multi-stakeholder group, without independence from government, advising the minister and creating delays in the way it negotiates and moves forward.

To have a 2025 milestone year, we need to do one thing and we need to know the minister is open to it, and he has already told the media that he is not open to it. We need to have the target for 2025 baked into the legislation before third reading. Now that the government says it is heading to 45%, which is far too weak if we are looking at the science, and I will get back to this if I have a moment, we need to at least say that by 2025 we will have a 25% reduction, or even 15%.

That needs to be baked into the legislation, so we have some accountability. The way the legislation works, it also says that two years before we hit the first milestone, we would have the first reporting event. That would be very consistent with the Paris agreement and the requirement for a global stock-take year in 2023. To get on the right page for that, we really do need a 2025 milestone year.

Again, looking at climate accountability legislation all around the world, something else they have in common is that the first milestone year every time is within five years. The U.K., as I mentioned, first passed legislation in 2008. It also passed legislation in 2019, and its first milestone year was 2025. New Zealand brought in its legislation, and within five years of it passing, 2025 was its first milestone year.

It is unfortunate that we hear Liberal after Liberal using talking points that mislead this House. I do not blame them personally. I think the bad advice is coming from within Environment Canada itself. I do not understand how the department is unfamiliar with what we negotiated in Paris.

However, I can be very clear that 2030 is not the only year referenced in the Paris agreement. It also has 2023 as the first global stock-take year, and under agreements negotiated in Paris, specifically the COP 21 decision document at paragraph 24, Canada was supposed to improve our NDC in calendar 2020. We ignored that requirement.

Now we are seeing improvement in Canada's stance based on the announcements the Prime Minister made last week at President Biden's climate summit, but they are clearly inadequate. The minimum Canada should be doing is 60% below 2005 levels by 2030.

Can we fix Bill C-12? I think we can, but the reality, and it is a harsh reality, is that the suggested amendments we have made so far have already been rejected by the Liberal government. Now we have a five-hour closure on debate. I very much fear that I will not be able to vote for Bill C-12 as is, not because I do not want climate action, but because, as Greta Thunberg says, without a near-term target that is meaningful, net-zero by 2050 is surrender.

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

Madam Speaker, the government, in bringing forward this legislation, is responding positively to what the population as a whole wants to see.

In the past, the government has indicated that legislation might not necessarily be perfect, and that is one of the reasons we want to go into committee, so we can listen to the amendments being brought forward to improve the legislation. However, the idea of net-zero and the creation of an advisory committee is very positive.

Is the hon. member familiar with some of the appointments that have been made to the advisory committee? If she is, could she provide her comments on the quality of the appointments?

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

Madam Speaker, I will not comment on the individuals involved. Many of them are colleagues or friends. It does not matter, the structure is wrong. This is not a time for a multi-stakeholder group. I strongly recommend, and I have done so to the minister, that the government bring back the national round table on the environment and the economy, which was killed by Stephen Harper in the omnibus budget, Bill C-38. We do like multi-stakeholder advice, and we like multi-stakeholders at committees, but this is not a place for a multi-stakeholder committee. This is a place for a panel of experts to make sure the government understands the science, because so far it does not seem to.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the member's references to Mark Carney's book, which I have recently finished reading. I have to say, concerning his call to more action on the environment and also greater fiscal responsibility, he seems to be putting himself outside of his chosen party on a number of issues. I hope the members who fawned over his speech at the convention would consider reading his book and absorbing at least some of his insights.

I want to ask the member about the Conservative amendment, which formally, under the rubrics of debate, we are considering right now. It is an amendment that calls for the government to take a second run at the bill. The Conservative Party and the Green Party might not agree on the precise conclusions, but the amendment calls for the government to implement a real plan that recognizes the challenges of climate change and also to come up with a way of integrating concern for the economy and the environment.

What is the member's take specifically on the amendment from the Conservative House leader?

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

Madam Speaker, I am afraid I tend to agree with the Liberals on this one in that it would have the effect of killing the bill. If the bill is not going to be fixed, we might as well kill it, but it is too soon to decide to do that.

I do note, by the way, that the Liberals managed to have Mark Carney speak to the convention without letting him give an actual speech. He was interviewed by the hon. member for Toronto Centre. I had looked forward to hearing his words on many things. I found the book Value(s) extremely significant. It would be worth reading for every Canadian because it really speaks to a new way of governing to build our society back better on many levels. I regretted that he was only interviewed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have time for a brief question.

The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation, which was very interesting.

A Conservative member who spoke earlier seemed to really emphasize carbon sequestration and all the ways carbon can be stored underground. I would like to hear her comments on that.

Furthermore, a number of environmental organizations have pointed out the shortcomings in the bill, including the absence of any obligation to achieve results and the lack of binding measures. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about establishing accountability mechanisms and having the government's measures reviewed by an independent authority based on the achievement—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I apologize for interrupting the member, but I had asked for a brief question.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for a brief answer.

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

Madam Speaker, on carbon, there is never any harm in looking at speculative technologies, but this one so far has proven to be very expensive and does not work terribly well, whereas renewable energy works very well. We need to move fast.

As to the accountability mechanisms, there are none in this bill. If the minister fails 10 years from now, all he or she has to do is say sorry and give the reasons for the failure.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will advise the next speaker that I will unfortunately have to stop him, but he will be able to continue his speech after question period.

Resuming debate, we have the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly, to Bill C-12 and the amendment the Conservative House leader has put forward.

We have been critical of many aspects of this bill from the beginning for a specific reason. It is because this bill is another signalling bill without substance. Too often, we have seen that on many important economic, environmental and cultural challenges facing the country, the government opts to signal its concern for the issue without putting in place a real or effective plan. The government's response to the environmental challenges we face has so often involved seeking to raise taxes and seeking to signal its concern through ever-changing evaluation metrics and targets without ever actually putting in place structures that would bind them or that would effectively address the global challenge this represents.

That is why Conservatives have put forward a constructive amendment, which recognizes the realities of the challenges associated with climate change. Certainly we would hope the government members vote for this amendment. To vote against this amendment would imply they do not believe in the science of climate change, since the amendment says right in it that it recognizes the challenge of climate change and the need to address it. Our amendment also highlights the need to integrate a commitment to economic growth with addressing the environmental challenges we face. Fundamentally, Conservatives believe we can do both: that we can work to respond to climate change and that we can build and strengthen our economy in the process.

We hear lip service paid to this idea from various parts of the House, the integration of a concern for the environment and a concern for the economy, but we very rarely see a plan that actually responds to the global challenge and strengthens our economy at the same time. From a Conservative perspective, we are looking at the challenge of climate change as a global challenge. We believe that the specific policy measures we take in response to this global challenge have to have some recognition of the global scope of that problem.

Importantly, that does not mean not acting. Recognizing that Canada represents less than 2% of global emissions is not an excuse to not act, but what it should impel us to do is act in such a way as contributes to the global problem of climate change. I think, most crucially, that should involve developing new technologies and working to promote the deployment of those technologies in a broader way around the world. We are not going to to respond to the global problem of climate change by simply taking action that reduces our emissions here in Canada, if the effect of those emissions reductions is simply greater emissions outside the country.

What we have from the Liberals are policies that kneecap our own industries, but impose no restrictions or additional costs on companies that are producing the same products outside Canada and then exporting those products back to us. In other words, if we are taxing producers in Canada, and as a result of that taxation those producers go outside the country, produce the same products and sell those products to Canadians, we are seeing the same or greater emissions and there is no economic or environmental policy the government is putting in place to deter that practice, it very clearly does not makes sense to, in the name of environmental policy, push producers beyond our borders without actually requiring those reductions.

The Conservative approach to this, as an alternative to this policy of pushing production outside the country but having the same production take place, calls for the development and deployment of new technology that would allow the production of energy in a cleaner way and also for border adjustments. Also, there is a new idea which I think is a very important one, that says that if companies are moving outside Canada and selling their products back to us, there has to be some adjustment at the border to take into consideration that they may not be paying a price on carbon that exists here in Canada.

If we encourage the development of cleaner energy technology in Canada for export around the world, and put in place measures to ensure those who are outside the country selling their products to Canadians do not have some unfair advantage over domestic production, we are actually recognizing the global scope of the problem.

With over 98% of the world's emissions happening outside of Canada, the development and deployment of new technology here will really make that critical difference. We are not seeing a plan like this from the Liberals. They are content to impose additional costs and requirements on Canadian industry and Canadian consumers without treating the global nature of the problem, which is the companies from abroad that have lower environmental standards selling their products into Canada. That does not make any sense. It looks like we are going after Canadian industry to make a point, without actually targeting the global nature of the problem. That is why the Conservatives have presented an alternative plan. That is why we have presented a constructive amendment here at second reading.

The other issue our amendment highlights is this. In addition to not having a clear plan to address the global challenge we face, the Liberals have already put in place individuals on the advisory body that is contemplated in this bill. How disrespectful to Parliament can they be by already putting in place a panel that is envisioned by the legislation? That presumes the legislation will pass in its present form.

I look forward to continuing these remarks at the next available opportunity.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It will not be right after Question Period; it will be the next time the bill is before the House and the hon. member will have four minutes.

Statements by Members, the hon. member for Burnaby North—Seymour.

The Environment

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is important to address complex issues like climate change head-on, not just for the benefit of our children but for all future generations on this planet. Our government has taken more action on fighting climate change and protecting the environment than any other government in Canadian history and we will continue to increase our ambition to do more.

We have introduced legislation to ensure Canadians have a right to a healthy environment, we have put forward a detailed plan to exceed our 2030 emissions targets and we are creating a credible path to becoming a net-zero emissions nation. In addition to our revenue-neutral price on pollution, we have invested more than $100 billion on building a clean and green future.

I would encourage everyone to read Canada's ambitious and transparent plan for the climate, as it is now one of the most detailed plans in the entire world. For details on what we are doing in Burnaby and north Vancouver, please read my quarterly reports, which are available at terrybeechmp.ca.

The Budget

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, two years and another political scandal later, the Prime Minister finally tabled a budget. For Canadians across the country and British Columbians in my region, this budget was a massive letdown. Workers in our forestry, tourism, seasonal industries; workers who have lost their jobs or had their wages slashed, were abandoned and left behind once again by the Liberal government.

For Canadians struggling with mental health issues or opioid addiction, this budget misses the mark. Job losses and endless lockdowns because of a failure to vaccinate Canadians continue to worsen our mental health crisis. We are battling a third wave of this pandemic because of the Prime Minister's failures. The reality is this: fewer than 3% of our population have been vaccinated. The Prime Minister had to take from third world countries to secure what few vaccines we have today.

Sadly, Canadians are stuck hearing Liberal backbenchers take Twitter victory laps about how they have exceeded their targets. Canadians are angry and they are frustrated. Let us face it, all the Prime Minister is hoping for is a self-engineered pandemic election. Members want proof? Just look at the Liberal election platform, I mean budget.

Gender-Based Violence

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, violence in the home is an unfortunate reality for too many women in Canada, and the COVID-19 pandemic has made it more frequent and more severe. There has been much focus from our government to tackle this tragic issue: having an emergency debate in the House, my tabling of a report with recommendations by the justice committee, and budget 2021 investments in combatting gender-based violence.

In my city, Peel police, under the leadership of Chief Nishan Duraiappah, has joined forces with Safe Centre of Peel and social service agencies to create a 50-officer strong intimate partner violence unit, offering greater support for survivors through a trauma-informed approach and aiming to reduce rates of violence. Collaborative initiatives like this are milestones in the right direction to combat intimate partner violence.

I thank the women and men of Peel police and Chief Duraiappah for their leadership in building safe communities.

Gaspé Peninsula

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Léger happiness index for Quebec, the happiest Quebeckers live on the Gaspé Peninsula.

The poll ranks the Gaspé-Magdalen Islands region as the best place to live. Obviously, no one back home is surprised to hear that. It is hard not to be happy when we spend every day with the seaway, Chaleur Bay, the rivers, mountains, forests and, of course, the people of Gaspé themselves. The Gaspé Peninsula is more than just a beautiful place to go on vacation, it is a land where life is good and every dream is possible.

The pandemic has made us realize the importance of having access to open spaces and the benefits of staying close to nature, but back home, we have known that for a very long time. The Gaspé Peninsula is lively, spectacular, vast and teeming with young, energetic people whose top priority is quality of life.

Happiness does exist, and it can be found in my fantastic region.

Château Dufresne

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to highlight the fact that Château Dufresne, a historic Hochelaga landmark, is 200 years old.

Château Dufresne represents 200 years of east Montreal history. In its current role as a museum, it is dedicated to the preservation and promotion of the history and heritage of east Montreal.

Oscar, one of the brothers who built the Château, contributed to the area's development and played an important role in fostering francophone culture in Montreal. The other brother, Marius, helped develop an urban plan for east Montreal, which included the Maisonneuve market and the Letourneux fire station.

Both brothers made significant contributions to the economic prosperity and architectural heritage of east Montreal. In its recent budget, our government mentioned the long history of industrial activity in east Montreal, and we will continue our efforts to revitalize the area for the economy of tomorrow.

After renovations and a year of pandemic, Château Dufresne is finally open. I invite everyone from Hochelaga and Montreal to visit the museum and to discover and rediscover the history of east Montreal.

Donald Holloway and Smiley Douglas

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Korean War was one of the most significant chapters in our country's proud military history, and I want to honour two veterans from our community who will be missed with their recent passing.

Don Holloway's lifetime of military service included time in the Korean War as a combat engineer. His dedication to veterans and the community was recognized with the Red Deer Honorary Senior Citizen of the Year award.

Lance Corporal Smiley Douglas was awarded a military medal for saving his comrades' lives when he picked up a grenade and threw it clear of them. He was also a friend and a neighbour. He was my first recollection of what war was, juxtaposed against an infectious laugh and sense of humour over the hand he lost in battle. I remember my father saying that Smiley could do more work with one hand than most men could do with two.

In moments like these, we pause to humanize the courage of those who went, not without fear, into the face of war. May we honour these men in death through the examples they set in life with bravery, love of community, kindness and generosity.

Lest we forget.

Waterloo Region Newspapers

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to recognize two local newspapers from Waterloo Region that are both celebrating their 25th anniversaries in 2021.

The Kitchener Citizen provides over 60,000 Kitchener households with local news each month. I want to thank editors Carrie Debrone and Helen Hall, and all the volunteers and contributors, for their hard work over the past 25 years.

Also celebrating 25 years is the Woolwich Observer, which serves Woolwich and Wellesley Townships in Kitchener—Conestoga. It is an independently owned weekly paper that brings local content, news, opinions and a crossword puzzle. I thank Joe Merlihan and the whole team of the Observer, past and present, for their hard work and dedication to supporting our local communities.

Local journalism remains an integral part of our community here in Kitchener—Conestoga and across Canada.

Congratulations to the staff and volunteers of the Kitchener Citizen and the Woolwich Observer for 25 years of dedicated service to our communities.

Organ and Tissue Donation

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every three days someone dies a preventable death waiting for an organ transplant. We celebrate Be A Donor Month in April here in Ontario to raise awareness for organ and tissue donation.

By registering to become donors, we have the power to save lives. In fact, one organ donor has the potential to save eight lives and enhance 75 more through tissue donation. Although a little more than 90% of Ontarians are in favour of organ donation, only 35% have actually registered. This month, let us make sure that we change that.

I encourage the residents in my riding of Humber River—Black Creek and all the people of Ontario to show their support by registering their consent for organ and tissue donation. They can register in only two minutes by visiting beadonor.ca. All they need is their health card number.

We have spoken so much about what we need to do to protect each other during this pandemic. Now let us save more lives by registering to become organ and tissue donors.

The Budget

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on behalf of the incredible people of southwest Saskatchewan, many of whom are continually asking for a plan to safely reopen the economy, get Canadians back to work and secure our future.

I was disappointed that budget 2021 included none of the above. Instead, it is proposing a reimagined Canadian economy that dabbles in risky economic ideas such as abandoning Canada's world-leading, sustainable natural resource industries, leaving our economy in a precarious position and alienating western Canadians even more.

Canada is now sitting at over $1 trillion in federal debt, meaning the average Canadian family owes over $77,000 in federal debt. While the forecast looks grim, I want to assure my constituents that they can be confident with our Conservative recovery plan. We will bolster manufacturing at home, support the resource sector, get Canadians back to work and secure the future for them and their children without this Prime Minister's great reset.

Seniors in Alfred-Pellan

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, seniors in Alfred-Pellan have been hit hard by the pandemic. For many of them, it has been a never-ending year of lockdowns, isolation and lack of social activities.

Today, I would like to highlight funding totalling nearly $509,000 for Laval through the new horizons for seniors program, which will help finance 41 new community projects. In Alfred-Pellan, 13 organizations will be getting a total of more than $114,000 to host activities that will help our seniors boost their digital skills, meet up virtually and, most importantly, break their isolation.

During these trying times for our seniors, I would like to thank the organizations making seniors' well-being their priority. I thank the volunteers who bring joy to the hearts of our seniors, and I thank our seniors for their valuable contributions to our community.

Telecommunications

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in what began as a mediocre attempt at legislation to level the playing field between Internet streaming giants and traditional Canadian broadcasters, the Minister of Canadian Heritage assured us that Bill C-10 was not some draconian tool of the state to limit Canadian freedom of expression on the Internet. He actually promised that his legislation was not interested in such things as when his great-uncle posts pictures of his cats.

In the original bill, there were exemptions to protect the freedoms of Canadians posting their online content, yet just the other day the minister ordered the section removed. The minister muses about granting himself the power to remove Internet content that he deems objectionable, and now he is granting authority to the CRTC to control what Canadians post online.

Conservatives will continue to fight for the freedoms of all Canadians, even for the minister's great-uncle's right to continue posting pictures of his cats, whether the minister actually likes them or not.