Debates of May 3rd, 2021

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like any early stage of a technology that is being adopted, we still have more advances that can be done. The technology with respect to zero-emission vehicles is growing rapidly. A lot of car companies are now starting to throw considerable financial weight into this, and I think we are going to see in short order a huge improvement not only in battery life but also in battery charge capacity.

I own a zero-emission vehicle. It depends on the kind of charger one gets, but it allows me to meet my needs quite ably and it is very satisfying knowing I am going around town not having any emissions. In a recent Angus Reid poll, only 34% of Conservative Party supporters said they believed climate change was human-caused. The Conservatives have a real problem, and the Conservative Party has to own up to that and really have a frank conversation with its membership on the seriousness of this problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is so incredibly short-sighted when Conservative members try to use the early place in the evolution of a particular product as an excuse for why we need to abandon it completely. The first electric car I had was not fully electric. It was a Chevy Volt and only had 40 kilometres' worth of electricity on a charge. The electric car I have now, the Hyundai Kona, can get me to Ottawa on a charge and then I charge it here before going back home.

Did the member feel like banging his head against the wall the way I did when he listened to the previous question he heard?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I need to save my forehead from that kind of pain, but in all seriousness, to the member's point, it is important to underline that with any early adaptation of a technology there will always be growing pains. We saw it at the turn of the last century when people were transitioning from horses and buggies to the first petrol-powered cars. It will take time for the infrastructure to spread and for electric cars to really get to where people need them to be, but it is happening. Many vehicles out there now have a 400-kilometre or 500-kilometre range on a single charge, which is a huge improvement over just five years of the technology being out there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. In terms of banging heads against the wall, I cannot say the Liberals are helping much. I also think that there are many things giving them a headache at the end of the day.

Bill C-215, introduced by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, was a climate bill with teeth that required the government to meet its targets by 2050. The bill we are currently studying is very timid, although we support it in principle. I would like to know whether my colleague sees the many paradoxes in the Liberals' actions in the fight against climate change.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I live in a province where the Liberals spent billions of our dollars to buy a bitumen-exporting pipeline and are spending billions more to increase its exporting capacity, so I very much understand his concerns.

I recognize what the Bloc has done on climate change. I also want to recognize the member for Winnipeg Centre in our own party, who has also brought up similar legislation. There are a lot of efforts from all parties, and we all need to collectively come together to treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves and make sure our actions meet our words in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-12, such an important bill. I do not think there is anything more important than what this bill seeks to set in motion.

We have made it very clear that we must reach net-zero by 2050 and that we must exceed the Paris climate targets by 2030. What this bill would do is set the framework to establish and measure those targets, but more importantly, afterwards, figure out if something needs to be adjusted and hold accountability back to Parliament for whatever governments come and go between now and 2050, so that Canadians have an ability to assess how we are doing.

I say that nothing is more important than this, because I cannot think of any particular piece of legislation that could trump this in terms of the impact it would have for generations to come.

I think of my children, who are 17, four and two, and the world they will live in 50 years from now. I worry about what it will look like from an environmental perspective and from an ecosystem perspective, not just here in Canada, as there is no doubt, in my opinion, that we are probably one of the better-off countries in terms of the effects of climate change, but what climate change will mean to things like world order. What impact will climate refugees, those seeking refugee status as a result of climate change, have in our world? Nothing matters more, in my opinion, than what this legislation attempts to hold governments to account on as we move into the future.

I think of some of the discussions that have been had today, and I think of what it is going to take to get to this. A lot of people talk about how this is going to be very challenging, how there is a lot of work that needs to be done, how electric vehicles are not where they need to be and what the real impact on reducing those emissions will be, and it is daunting to think about it. I think we really have to change a lot of what we do.

However, if we stop there and only consider the daunting perspective of what needs to be done, we will completely miss the opportunity that comes along with it. In my opinion, there is a great opportunity here to be leaders in the technology. Who does not want to develop those new technologies that the world will adopt? Who does not want to be an exporter of great technology? We need to be at the leading edge of this so that we are exporting our technologies around the world, as other nations that are developing are looking for ways to do things differently and to be more environmentally sensitive so that the impact is more environmentally correct, but also on a more localized level.

I will never forget one of the climate strike rallies in Kingston on a Friday afternoon a couple of years ago. One of the organizers of the event, Gavin Hutchison, whom I know very well as he helped me in my 2015 campaign, came up to me and said, “Think of the potential for job creation in doing what we need to do.” Kingston is renowned for its old buildings, and of course old buildings do not lend themselves well to being extremely efficient until they have been retrofitted. Gavin pointed over to Kingston city hall and said, “Think of the work that has to be done to change those windows to triple-pane windows and relook at the way we do our heating systems by using geothermal and other ways of doing things.” All of this will employ thousands of people in the short, medium and long term in order to get to where we need to be.

When we have a debate like this, I think of somebody like Gavin. For somebody who is so incredibly passionate and who understands the dire circumstances we are in, he still has the ability to be optimistic. He still looks at the glass as half-full, rather than saying, “Oh well, I can only drive 300 kilometres with my electric car, so I may as well go back to the F-150”, which, by the way, is going electric in the next couple of years. People like Gavin do not think like that. The vast majority of Canadians do not think like that. They look at things from an optimistic perspective. Our economy and markets look at things optimistically: Where will the leading-edge technology be? Capital for anything with the term “green” attached to it is readily available because the markets know that this is where the future is.

We are about to unlock incredible potential with the way our commitment to our environmental responsibilities is changing. I think of some of the opposition to this bill that I have heard today and I cannot seem to wrap my head around it. Conservative members seem to suggest that they are against this bill and I cannot understand why. When we think about it, this bill basically says that we establish benchmarks and then measure ourselves against them. What more would an opposition party want than that? We are literally putting this into legislation. We are saying, this is what we are going to accomplish and, by the way, we are going to follow up to see if we actually did it. With the ammunition it would give to the Conservative Party in attacking and holding a government to account, I cannot understand why anybody would be against this. Even if someone was against doing anything with respect to climate change, there is still the opportunity to hold the government to account.

That brings me to my next point. Are the Conservatives really against this bill, or are they against the evolution and modernizing of our economy so that we can get to where we are being more environmentally responsible? It is so funny that the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, who was speaking earlier, was talking about Liberals being hypocrites. This is coming from a party that, by the way, now supports pricing pollution and clean fuel standards. For years, they fought us on this. They repeatedly said that the Liberals were trying to pass a carbon tax, that they cannot and will not have it, and now it is suddenly what they are going to do.

As if that was not the best part, I want to read something the member for Battle River—Crowfoot said in this House today. Members might find this interesting. The member said, “all members of this House...certainly from the Conservative side, support a strong environment for our future, but we also believe that needs to go hand in hand with the economy”. A Conservative member in this House today said the environment needs to go hand in hand with the economy. I feel for the previous minister of environment, the member for Ottawa Centre, who for years sat in the House saying the exact same thing and she was heckled repeatedly for it. What is next? Are the Conservatives going to come in here and say “the middle class and those working hard to join it”? Is that the next line that is going to start coming from the Conservatives?

I will end with where I started. Nothing is more important than this bill. Nothing is more important than defining what our future will look like and, even more importantly, holding any government to account to make sure it delivers, and if it does not, understanding exactly what it is going to do differently so that it does. Without this, nothing else really matters. This is the most important thing that we can do for future generations.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. My hon. colleague has said what the government is going to do, but the government has been in power for almost six years and emissions have not gone down. The government has filibustered at committee, obfuscated and done everything it can to avoid making sure that information is provided to this House, to Parliament and to Canadians.

Can my hon. colleague tell us exactly how this legislation will hold the government to account?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do remember very well when this member helped get this government into power in 2015.

The legislation is very clear. It talks about establishing the framework. It has the years in it for which accountability will come back once the benchmarks are established. The opposition can then follow along in the timeline to see if the government has reached the targets. If it has not, then it might be time for another energetic question period. That is basically how they will be able to follow along and make sure that the government is held accountable.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to my colleague, I cannot help but think of the novel 1984 by George Orwell.

I am not thinking of the party in power in the Orwell's novel, but rather of his concept of doublethink. Doublethink is the ability to hold two completely different opinions and to believe them both while forgetting that they are completely contradictory.

In its budget, the Liberal Party has allocated $21.6 billion for a green recovery. However, it spent $17 billion on a pipeline and gave the go-ahead to offshore drilling without an environmental assessment. At present, it is introducing Bill C-12, which contains nothing that is binding on the government.

Can my hon. colleague tell me why the government voted against Bill C-215 and is now proposing a much more timid bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no doublethink here. I am on the record as having said that I did not think it was a good idea to purchase a pipeline. I am on the record as having said that. I am saying what I think. I am standing here as an individual member of Parliament to deliver that.

This bill is at the stage where we would like to get it to committee, so that if a member is interested in advocating for why targets need to be in this bill, as opposed to it just being a framework, then I think it would be a great opportunity for the member and others to do that at committee. I have heard others say that, and I am not even completely against it. I would love to hear what the committee has to say about that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that we have to change a lot of what we do, and yet we have seen the Liberal government continuing and increasing the massive oil and gas subsidies that are given, but it has given very little to clean energy.

What I really want to talk about is the Trans Mountain pipeline. The latest estimate from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and also by the company, is $18.5 billion, to build the pipeline and ram it through. It will result in the mutilation and destruction of the Burnett Creek watershed, which is just a few kilometres from here. It will substantially increase greenhouse gas emissions. It is a massive mega project that essentially means Canada will never be able to meet its commitments under Paris.

My question is very simple. The government is ramming this pipeline through, which means 50 years of increased oil and gas exports, raw bitumen. Why is the government not actually walking the talk?

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

Mr. Speaker, one might think the member did not hear the answer to the previous question. I just finished saying that I am on the record as having said that I am not in favour of the purchase of that pipeline. I do respect the fact that there are competing challenges when we do these things. I realize that the government would have had to weigh a whole host of different variables into making that decision, and I respect that.

On oil and gas subsidies, I could not agree with the member more. Again, that is another thing I am on the record for, as saying that I do not think we should be subsidizing oil and gas in Canada.

I would encourage the member to listen to my speech and then ask me a question. If he is going to go off topic onto something that is completely different, like the two issues he brought up, he should at least find out what my position is on them, so that we can have a meaningful discussion about it when he does ask me a question.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.

The legislation before the House is nothing more than more virtue-signalling from a virtue-signalling government led by a virtue-signalling Prime Minister. The Liberals talk the talk when it comes to reducing GHGs, but when it comes to walking the walk and actually delivering, the government, without more, gets a big fat F.

Accountability is in the title of the bill. Accountability is mentioned eight more times in the body of the bill. However, make no mistake that when the Liberals talk about accountability and when they incorporate the word “accountability” into their own legislation, they mean not accountability for the Liberals. After all, the first targets provided for in the bill are in the year 2030, which is nearly a decade from now, likely long after the government has left office and almost certainly long after the Prime Minister has left office.

When the Liberals talk about accountability therefore, they are talking about accountability for future governments, but not for themselves. So much for the Liberals talking about accountability. It is no wonder that the Liberals want to impose accountability on future government, while exempting themselves from the same accountability. This is not the first time the government has set targets for reducing GHG emissions and then completely failing to meet them. When the Prime Minister took office in 2015, he committed to the Paris climate accord and with it the Paris targets of a 30% reduction of GHG emissions from 2005 levels by the year 2030.

How is the government fairing with respect to meeting that target? According to the national inventory report published by the Department of Environment and Climate Change, the government is projected to miss its 2030 targets by a full 15%. It is important to emphasize that the national inventory report is a government report. That is the government's own projection. It is missing the mark by 15%. In response to that, this projection is likely wildly optimistic given the fact that over the last six years under the government's watch GHG emissions have gone up, not down.

It is important to note that not only is the government way off from meeting its 2030 Paris commitments, it failed to meet the previous 2020 commitment of reducing GHGs 17% below 2005 levels. The government missed that target by a whopping 123 million tonnes. To put that into context, that is the equivalent of Canada's entire agricultural sector and a good part of Canada's electricity sector.

It should be noted that while the government completely failed to meet its 2020 targets of a 17% reduction, our neighbour to the south, the United States, actually did achieve those targets set by the previous Obama administration in 2009. The U.S. reduced its GHG levels by 21% under the Trump administration.

I know the Prime Minister likes to compare himself to President Trump, but I certainly think he would be rather embarrassed to to learn that under the Trump administration the U.S. achieved its 2020 targets, while he completely missed the mark.

What does the Prime Minister say after completely blowing the 2020 targets and being completely off track with regard to 2030? The Prime Minister's answer, being the virtue-signalling Prime Minister he is, is to simply pull a new number out of a hat and come up with a new and more ambitious target, forgetting the fact he cannot even meet his Paris target.

When the government tabled its budget, the government said that we should forget 30% and that it would up the ante to a 36% reduction. Then, three days later when the Prime Minister appeared at the Biden climate summit, the Prime Minister said that 36% was nothing, that it was a pittance, how about 45%? That is a 9% increase with respect to a commitment to reduce Canada's GHGs within the span of three days.

At the U.S. Biden climate summit, President Biden committed to a 50% to 52% reduction. How much longer will it be before the Prime Minister suddenly announces that it will not be 45% but that will be 50% to 52%? Surely the Prime Minister, being a virtue signaller, will want to outpace President Biden. Why not 55%, 60% or maybe even 80%? What a sham this is.

If the policies implemented by the government to justify its targets did not have such a devastating effect on entire sectors of the Canadian economy, the Prime Minister changing targets seemingly every day on a napkin would constitute a national joke. While the Prime Minister seemingly could not outbid himself fast enough before President Biden, lapping it up with other world leaders, there was a world leader also at the summit, who leads a country that produces the most GHG emissions in the world, that being President Xi of China.

What was President Xi's commitment at the summit? He said that China would “strive to peak carbon dioxide emissions before 2030”. Let us let that sink in. In other words, President Xi committed to increasing GHG emissions over the next 10 years. This is from a country that contributes to 28% of global emissions, and is rising every day, compared to Canada's 1.5%. What was the Prime Minister's response to President Xi's total lack of a commitment? He said nothing. He is apparently fine with China increasing GHG emissions. He is apparently fine with China building hundreds of coal-fired power plants as we speak.

Simply put, the best that can be said for the Prime Minister's approach when it comes to reducing GHGs is that it is a wholly unserious one from a wholly unserious Prime Minister.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech.

Honestly, for the sake of future generations, I have a hard time swallowing what the government on the other side of the House and the former government have to say. I was around in 2009. This issue was top of mind for me when the Copenhagen meeting was being held. What happened then? His own government threw in the towel.

It is therefore hard for me to participate in these debates and see what kind of resolve there is. Earlier I spoke about targets and objectives, and I wondered if the government was going to walk the talk. All I can say is that I am ashamed.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle that under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper, Canada actually saw a real reduction in GHGs. The Chrétien government signed the Kyoto accord and did precisely nothing. The current government signed on to the Paris agreement and we have gone backward, not forward.

With respect to the Conservative Party, we have put forward a comprehensive plan that recognizes this is a global issue that requires working with our allies and that we have to deal with countries that are the biggest emitters, including China.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the climate crisis is the foundational political issue of our times. There are rarely issues in politics that are existential, but this is one of them. Our planet is at stake. Ecosystems may be permanently destroyed, species may go extinct and human existence will be irreparably altered.

Over the last 25 years, we have seen numerous targets and pledges made by successive Liberal governments to meet carbon reduction targets and the Liberals have missed every single one of them. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Given that the Liberals have a 100% record at failing to hit their targets as well as their contradictory behaviour in expanding fossil fuel infrastructure, could the member tell me how Canadians could possibly trust the Liberal government to hit these targets without annual mandatory reductions or a 2025 target?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Kingsway is absolutely right. The current government has missed the mark time and time again.

As I noted at the beginning of my speech, one of the problems with this bill is that the first target is set in 2030, nearly 10 years from now, roughly three elections or four elections away. Very simply put, the government is not serious when it comes to transparency or accountability.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a farmer, I have been in the business of carbon sequestration all my life and it is pretty exciting to see what kind of things we can do. If we take a look at the greenhouse, we pump CO2 in there. We go from 400 parts per million to 1,000 parts per million and we get a 21% to 61% increase in crop yield. It is amazing.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about the Conservatives' plan to support and encourage individual Canadian innovators in finding new technologies that improve our environment.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Cloverdale—Langley City is absolutely right that carbon sequestration is key to reducing Canada's GHG emissions. I know my province of Alberta had called on the federal government to step up to the plate and provide real leadership. We saw a mere pittance in the budget toward supporting carbon capture and storage.

By contrast, the Conservative Party has a real plan, including a $5-billion commitment to build carbon capture capacity and innovation. It is absolutely key. The Conservatives are committed to doing it, and working with the provinces toward reducing GHGs.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-12 from the territory of the Snuneymuxw First Nation, and to serve the communities in Nanaimo—Ladysmith and the unceded territory of Snaw-naw-as, Stz'uminus, Snuneymuxw and Lyackson first nations.

Climate concerns rank very high in my riding. On November 21, I had the pleasure of taking part in the inaugural meeting of the Community Climate Hub here in Nanaimo. There were some great presentations and sharing of ideas about what we can do as a community to combat climate change. The ideas included creating active, transportation-friendly streets; improving our local food system and lowering the carbon footprint of our food; energy retrofits for homes, businesses and institutions; and transitioning from fossil-fuel heating, oil and fracked gas to electricity and heat pumps. There were suggestions for better public transit and for protecting the local natural environment with green spaces to ensure a vibrant biodiversity both within the city and in the surrounding area. It was an energizing meeting. Climate action at the personal and community level is important and necessary, but all of the actions that Canadians take individually and locally can be wiped out with the approval of a single diluted bitumen pipeline or a liquefied fracked gas terminal.

Just days before this community meeting, the federal government tabled Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. Unfortunately, this piece of legislation will not hold this government to account for emissions reductions or the next government or the government after that. The accountability does not start until 2030, and that accountability is weak at best. We need climate action and accountability now.

In 2015, this government went to the Paris summit with the Harper government's target to reduce emissions by 30% over 2005 levels by 2030. The government left Paris with that pathetic target in place and tried to pretend that it was the Paris target. In the Paris climate accord decision document, Canada agreed to set new emissions reduction targets in 2020 and every five years after that. It did not happen. It was not until Earth Day this year under pressure from the Biden administration that the government increased the target to between 40% to 45% by 2030. That target is still completely inadequate and fails to address the urgency of the climate crisis. We still do not have a 2025 target that we committed to under the Paris accord.

The last IPCC report states that we have just 10 years to bring emissions down substantially or we cannot keep global warming to under 1.5°. The prospect of a livable future for our children and grandchildren is in peril.

I have heard the argument too many times that what Canada does in terms of climate action will make no difference, but, in fact, we are the ninth highest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet and the eleventh highest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita. When we compare greenhouse gas emissions reductions, we have the worst record of the G8. Canada is a climate laggard.

The U.K. has a carbon budget law that binds governments to emissions targets and holds them accountable. In other words, it eliminates politics from climate action. In 1990, the U.K. produced 25% more emissions than Canada. It has reduced its emissions by 42% and made a commitment at Paris to reduce emissions by 68% by 2030. Collectively, the 27 countries of the European Union have reduced their emissions by 25% since 1990.

Canada's current emission levels are 21% higher than they were in 1990. That is not climate leadership, it is shameful. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have signed on to nine international climate accords and have failed on every account. None of the governments that signed those agreements created a plan, and Canada has not met a single one of the commitments it has made.

Canada's last target, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, was set by the Harper Conservative government in 2009. Eight provinces and three territories representing 85% of Canada's population were on track to meet that target, but two provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, increased greenhouse gas emissions so much that they completely wiped out the sacrifices, investments and advancements to climate action made by the rest of the country.

These emissions increases can be attributed almost exclusively to the oil and gas industry. Where is the accountability? How is it that the federal government cannot ensure that the provinces work together to meet our international commitments?

Now British Columbia is joining the rogue provinces ignoring Canada's commitment to climate action and accountability. B.C. is providing billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies for fracking and the export of liquified fracked gas. LNG Canada is owned and controlled by five foreign multinationals. It will be the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia. The B.C. government is practically giving the resource away by providing fracking companies with billions of dollars in deep-well subsidies while only collecting a fraction in royalties.

From the wellhead to the end consumer, fracked gas has the equivalent greenhouse gas footprint as burning coal for electricity. Extracting natural gas through hydraulic fracking releases methane into the atmosphere. For the first 20 years after it is released, methane is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Fracking uses and poisons huge amounts of water, poisons airsheds and has been linked to increased risks of asthma, cancer and birth defects. Fracking causes earthquakes, and yet the B.C. government allows it in the vicinity of huge hydroelectric dams.

Many jurisdictions around the world have either placed moratoriums on hydraulic gas fracking or banned it outright. Some jurisdictions are also banning the installation of gas heating and gas appliances in new construction. Why? It is because they understand that creating more demand for a product that releases climate-destroying methane is irresponsible.

Fracking needs to be banned in Canada. It is incompatible with lowering carbon emissions, combatting climate change, protecting fresh water, maintaining a healthy environment, and respecting indigenous sovereignty, rights and title.

As I speak, some of the last big-tree old-growth forests in B.C. are either being logged or are under immediate threat of being logged, trees that sequester massive amounts of carbon, far more than an acre of seedlings. The B.C. government is allowing those trees to be cut down. The B.C. government is also allowing whole trees to be ground up into pellets and exported as biofuel. That is not climate leadership.

These are just some of the reasons that Canada needs a carbon budget law. We need to take politics out of climate action, and follow the science. The priorities of the government demonstrate that it is not serious enough about the existential threat of climate change. The government is spending $17 billion on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Trans Mountain is not just a climate loser, it is a money loser. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, the only way that TMX will not result in billions of dollars in losses is if the government abandons action on climate change and increases oil sands production.

We need a just transition for fossil fuel workers and an end to all subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Research conducted by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which breaks down new and recycled spending promises, shows that the government is proposing to allocate just 0.25% of Canada’s GDP toward climate action. That is far less than the 2% of GDP that leading climate economist Nicholas Stern says is needed to stop global warming from surpassing two degrees.

Canada has committed $5.1 billion per year towards climate action, when we need to be committing $40 billion a year. That is not climate leadership. The climate crisis is the defining struggle of our generation, just as World War II was the struggle of our grandparents' generation. Focusing on incentives for households and businesses is not enough. The government must take charge, force the provinces into line to meet our international commitments and bind us to a whole-of-government approach that mandates action to win this struggle.

The real obstacle is not the climate deniers, it is politicians who recognize the science but lack the courage to remove politics from climate action. We need a carbon budget law. Bill C-12 is not it, and does not meet the challenge before us. It provides a false sense of security, and pushes long overdue action and accountability down the road for another decade.

Young people across this country are demanding better from us. They, our children and our grandchildren deserve more than this weak piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the part of the member's speech where he was talking about the offsets between different provinces. To be completely honest, it is not something I was entirely aware of. He was suggesting that some provinces have done better and that a couple of others have done worse, which is how the offset was calculated. Can he expand on that?

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

Madam Speaker, if we look at the analysis of our 2020 target for the Copenhagen Accord, Ontario met the target. Other provinces reduced their emissions and had a plan they followed through on. They reduced their emissions by almost 17%, which was what the target was. Alberta and Saskatchewan increased their emissions so much that we basically flatlined between 2005 and 2020, so we did not meet those targets.

What is happening now in British Columbia means we are going to see a massive expansion in fracking for LNG Canada. We know that gas fracking is terrible for the climate. It is a climate killer. When we put methane into the atmosphere, it is 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas. It is going to create a serious problem for us. We have a third province that has now hopped onto this bandwagon of being a climate rogue and the federal government needs to step up, show leadership and make sure the provinces are held to account for our international agreements.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's detailed speech. We will remember these failures for the rest of our lives.

I would like to hear his thoughts on the bill that unfortunately never came to be, as well as on the need to act very quickly, without the usual partisanship we see always focused on protecting the economy.

If we had invested in innovation and the environment in recent decades, we would have already transitioned to green energies. I would like to hear my colleague speak to that.

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

Madam Speaker, we are so far behind in this country that other countries are far ahead of us. There is technology that is being developed in Canada that is being used in Europe. Corvus Energy in Richmond designed the battery system that has electrified the ferry fleets in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. We have a company in Mississauga that is creating hydrogen trains, locomotives, for the European train system. Canadian technology is being developed. We could be further ahead on that kind of technology development if we were promoting it as a government and not just sitting back and having our economy dependent on the extraction, rip and ship, of raw resources so that when a pipeline gets cancelled we have to have an emergency debate.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have heard the term “walk the walk” many times today. It reminds me of when I was at a G20 energy meeting in Argentina three years ago where the U.K. minister got up and said, “We have to walk the walk.” He was referring to climate accountability legislation the U.K. brought in. We now have a bill before us that kicks the can down the road another decade with weak targets. I guess I am despairing about what we have to do here to get that sense of urgency. I wonder if the member can comment on that.