Debates of May 31st, 2022

Building a Green Prairie Economy Act

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

My apologies.

As a former minister in the Prime Minister's cabinet, he is responsible for the situation that we find ourselves in and for the Liberal government's inaction. There is a continued pattern of saying the right thing but doing the opposite, of talking about climate leadership while handing out billions to big oil and gas, of declaring a climate emergency while buying and building a pipeline, of promising to reduce emissions while approving Bay du Nord, of saying that they believe in climate change while ignoring the science.

What we need is a green new deal, a just transition for workers. What we need are massive investments in green infrastructure, in retrofits, in supports for workers, and we need a real plan with good family-sustaining jobs for the communities that are most impacted. While communities are paying the price for the government's inaction, the biggest polluters, the biggest oil and gas companies, continue to make record profits while collecting billions in fossil fuel subsidies. We need to stop giving our public money to the corporations that are fuelling the climate crisis. We need to redirect those funds into climate solutions now—not sometime down the road, not in a few years, but now. It is not about the environment versus the economy, not a trade-off between jobs and climate solutions. Climate solutions are job creators.

Unfortunately, when the Liberal government talks about balancing the economy and the environment, what it means is increasing oil and gas production while making promises about meeting the targets that it keeps missing. The climate crisis is here now. We are already seeing the impacts. We need to drastically reduce our emissions and we need action that aligns with limiting global warming to 1.5°C if we have any hope of avoiding the most catastrophic outcome.

Instead, the government continues to leave Canadians with an uncertain future and continues to fail workers, particularly those in the oil and gas sector. A green economy should mean good, sustainable jobs, not more boom-and-bust economies. It should be creating employment in the sectors that tackle the climate crisis, in the sectors that tackle the biodiversity crisis. It means cleaning up our environment and reducing our emissions, and doing it in a way that supports workers.

We need a well-managed and inclusive transition to a zero-carbon economy, and that transition must be in line with the needs of the communities most impacted. An inclusive transition means ensuring that first nations, Inuit and Métis people are not only at the table but supported in leading the conversation. We need a transition that addresses the needs of women, of racialized communities, of young people, of newcomers.

To quote Blue-Green Canada, “We must find solutions so our economy is just, green, inclusive and fair.” Denial is no longer possible. Delay is no longer an option. Canadians want ambitious action on the climate emergency. A climate-safe and more just future is possible; we just need a government with the political will to make it happen.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend and colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, for his passionate work to bring forward this proposed legislation.

As a member from the prairies, I am proud to stand in full support of Bill C-235. In a time of significant change, a strong prairies region is critical for a strong nation and our postpandemic economy. The bill is about recognizing our innovations and ensuring that we make smart investments that are good for prairies communities, good for the Canadian economy and good for the planet.

It is about building on the prairies' economic strengths and increasing sustainability in sectors such as energy, agriculture, forestry, transportation, manufacturing, technology and tourism. It is about seizing the opportunity to maintain our leadership as a source of food and energy for the world through wise stewardship of our natural resources and sustainable development for the future. It is about long-term infrastructure projects that anticipate and adapt to the effects of climate change. It is about protecting and developing our natural resources and building a clean economy that will provide the good-paying, middle-class jobs of today and of tomorrow.

Bill C-235 represents a new way of doing business as a nation, and we are already heading in the right direction. Since 2015, our government has invested more than $100 billion to help fight climate change and protect the environment. We are helping companies and communities on the prairies capitalize on opportunities in the transition to clean technologies and a low-carbon economy.

For example, in Calgary last January, my friend and colleague, the minister responsible for PrairiesCan, announced more than $3 million to support innovation in Alberta's clean-tech sector. That includes a new energy transition centre in downtown Calgary, a world-leading centre of expertise that pairs industry and the University of Calgary to help small and medium-sized businesses develop new technologies to meet the growing global demand for environmentally friendly energy projects and processes, clean-tech benefits from our existing energy expertise, a talented workforce and emerging capabilities in the energy transition.

As we shift gears into the future, carbon capture, utilization and storage, or CCUS, will play an essential role in a prosperous net-zero economy. In this year's budget, we propose an investment tax credit for CCUS to secure Canada's place as a leader in CCUS and support the Canadian innovators and engineers advancing this technology.

Decarbonizing our economy is a long-term piece of work, and hydrogen fuels are poised to play a key role. The expanding global hydrogen market is estimated to be worth $2.5 trillion within the next three decades. Investing in it during these early days is why our government developed the hydrogen strategy for Canada.

Alberta is a natural for this. It has the natural gas reserves to feed it. It has the right people and talent grown in our energy sector to participate in it. Edmonton is positioned to be at the epicentre of the new hydrogen economy. For example, our government is supporting C-Fer Technologies to upgrade its testing facility. Our investment means that more businesses can develop and refine their products and technologies to ensure they are suitable for use with hydrogen and capitalize on future growth. This is just one example of the ongoing transition and how the prairies can be a world leader in the net-zero economy.

Indigenous communities on the prairies have long understood the need for sustainability. For example, the Birdtail Sioux Dakota Nation is a joint venture partner in the Birtle transmission project to flow up to 250 megawatts of Manitoba hydro power, clean power, to the SaskPower grid.

Two years ago, Fisher River Cree Nation launched Manitoba's largest solar generation project, built entirely by indigenous employees with financial support in the way of $1 million from our government. Now other indigenous communities are reaching out to Fisher River for advice on starting their own solar farms and cutting their reliance on diesel generators in the north.

Building a green prairies economy is also about using our know-how to build sustainable things that people need, and I am proud to say that this government has supported the electrification of Manitoba's heavy vehicle manufacturing industry. As an example, in the great city of Winnipeg, where I am from, the not-for-profit Vehicle Technology Centre is working with local companies to design and build zero-emission urban and intercity buses, fire trucks, recreational vehicles and agricultural and mining equipment.

In conclusion, the bill before us would develop a framework for local co-operation and engagement in the implementation of federal programs across various sectors to build a sustainable green economy for the prairie provinces. I know that my hon. friend is proud of the work that he and other colleagues played to bring PrairiesCan into being to work with others to meet the unique needs of more prairie communities, and I thank them for that.

On the prairies, we know the value of collaboration. It is how our ancestors made it through bitter winters and turned survival into success. A common thread running through my meetings with indigenous, business and community leaders is the hope of greater co-operation as we address the challenges ahead of us. We make progress when municipal governments, indigenous governments, communities and provinces, local community organizations, learning institutions and private sector companies large and small work together. Together, and recognizing that this is not an easy thing, we can stimulate a green prairie economy. This bill will create a new, collaborative plan for the prairies, a game plan to meet the challenges we face and achieve our ambitions.

Finally, I am proud that this bill is an opportunity to stand up for prairie workers and communities as we continue to build a green economy that works for everyone.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-235, an act respecting the building of a green economy in the prairies. I am always eager to speak to any legislation that will impact the prairies, so I want to thank my hon. colleague from Manitoba for his interest in our province and in the Canadian prairies.

The fact that this bill was introduced as a private member’s bill and not as a government bill shows the lack of priority the government continues to display toward the Canadian prairies. I sincerely hope that more members, such as my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre, call on the government to support the Canadians who proudly call the prairies their home.

Bill C-235 is an attempt to increase local collaboration and build a green economy in the prairie provinces. I applaud the intent of the legislation. However, I cannot help but notice the lack of focus on agriculture.

I have always said that Canadian agriculture should be part of the solution and not treated as part of the problem. When it comes to the environment, Canadian farmers are world leaders in environmental leadership, and their record proves it. They are some of the most sustainable stewards of the natural landscape across our country, and their efforts to preserve and conserve the environment should not go unrecognized. Any plan to build a green economy must include Canadian agriculture, especially in the prairie provinces.

This is why I find clause 5 of Bill C-235 so disturbing. Clause 5 states that the Minister of Industry must “prepare a report on the progress and effectiveness of the framework, setting out the Minister’s conclusions and recommendations” on this green economy.

The legislation states that the minister must collaborate with “the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Natural Resources and any minister responsible for economic development in the Prairie provinces”. However, it abruptly stops short of including the Minister of Agriculture.

How can a plan for the Canadian prairies not have the minister responsible for agriculture at the table? Agriculture is an economic pillar for the Canadian prairies. Any plan to grow a green economy must include agriculture. If this bill makes it to committee, I urge members of this House to amend it so that Canadian agriculture is included. The Minister of Industry should be mandated to consult with the Minister of Agriculture on any plan to green the economy, especially in the Canadian prairies. I believe that including this would dramatically improve the bill.

Additionally, the absence of agriculture is shown in subclause 3(2) of Bill C-235, which is focused on consultation. Subclause 3(2) would require the minister to consult with the provincial government representatives responsible for transportation, environment, and employment, but does not require the minister to consult with the provincial agriculture representatives.

Canadian farmers and ranchers deserve a seat at the table. Bill C-235 could easily be improved by including agriculture in the provincial consultation process.

I should also note that I have a lot of questions about the metrics that will be used to determine the outcomes of Bill C-235. Subclause 3(3) of the legislation states, “The framework must include measures that promote economic sustainability and growth and employment in the Prairie provinces”. However, how the government will measure these targeted outcomes appears to be unknown.

The bill also requires the Minister of Industry to prepare a report on the progress and effectiveness of the framework. However, how the minister will determine what is considered effective is also unknown.

My constituents know that I have never believed in the Ottawa-knows-best attitude. Unfortunately, I fear that this bill may only fuel this approach by adding a new layer of red tape and regulation to economic development at a time when we should be reducing it.

I find it interesting that Bill C-235 is a bill focused on improving the environment within specific provincial boundaries because it was only a few years ago when the Liberal government rejected Manitoba’s very own green plan, which was specifically designed to meet the needs of the province. I strongly believe that a one-size-fits-all approach will never work for environmental policy, and I hope that the government will one day acknowledge this too.

I do applaud the fact that the bill would give priority to making use of new sources of energy, including nuclear. As a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I have heard loud and clear that we will never meet our climate goals if we do not embrace nuclear energy. The government must grow Canada’s nuclear industry, and I am pleased to see the member for Winnipeg South Centre acknowledge that.

In conclusion, I support the spirit of Bill C-235 to improve local engagement in building a greener economy, and I thank my colleague for focusing on a region that we both proudly call home. However, I have major concerns with the blatant neglect of Canadian agriculture in the bill. Simply put, there would be no prairie economy without agriculture, and Bill C-235 fails to acknowledge this in its current form.

I hope that my remarks and suggested changes regarding this legislation are considered by members during its consideration in committee. I am always happy to work with any member of the House to grow Canadian agriculture and grow the Canadian prairies.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, it was with great interest that I read the bill introduced by our colleague from Winnipeg South Centre, which calls on the government to work with key stakeholders to develop an action plan to move the prairies toward a greener economy.

It may not be easy, but western Canada must move away from fossil fuels. Everyone acknowledges the pressing need for an energy transition away from oil, except perhaps some of our colleagues, who, unfortunately, have occasionally tried to take advantage of the crisis in Ukraine to promote Canadian oil and gas.

However, the challenge will be enormous, given the forces involved. The sponsor of this bill is well aware of this, having served as natural resources minister from 2015 to 2018. If the challenge is great, it is primarily because of the power and scale of the oil lobbies. Everyone is aware of this. These behemoths hoard talent and put pressure on wages and costs. They hinder the creation and growth of innovative SMEs, which are trying to develop sectors that would diversify the economy of this region.

The energy revolution is inevitable, however. It will happen. That is a fact, no matter what fantasies some people may still have about green oil. A total transformation of the existing framework requires support from all economic stakeholders, in both the political and financial sectors. Unfortunately, the financial sector is not currently making much of an effort or much progress. Many banks talk a good game, promising to move away from fossil fuels and commit to Ottawa's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. That is the latest objective announced, and the plan is still in development.

However, investments in the oil industry jumped from $122 billion in 2016 to $160 billion in 2019. Investments did drop in 2020 as a result of the pandemic, but the five largest Canadian banks are still among the top 25 largest investors in fossil fuels—

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

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I would ask him to take his phone off his desk because the vibrations are bothering the interpreters.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize. I would also like to take a moment to sincerely apologize to the interpreters.

I was saying that the five largest Canadian banks are all still on the list of the world's top 25 investors in fossil fuels. Knowing that today's investments will be used to increase tomorrow's production, I will be polite and simply say that we are not exactly positioning ourselves to meet our environmental objectives.

We hear about carbon capture and storage, but these measures will have little effect on reducing emissions. These strategies will never replace a real shift to renewable energy. The strategy of “let's increase production, then we'll increase capture” is simply doomed to fail.

Remember that one of the objectives of the Paris Agreement, signed by Ottawa, is to use financial flows to promote the development of an economy that has low greenhouse gas emissions and is resilient to climate change. I encourage my government colleagues to finally adopt a policy to implement this objective, in case they have forgotten about it. It is Parliament's responsibility to send a clear signal and to support the green shift, which must be accelerated. Canada is asleep at the wheel, make no mistake about it.

In 2019, an expert panel, jointly created by the departments of Finance and the Environment, stated that this transition would not be possible without real change in financial models, and pointed in particular to the urgency of reorienting investments toward greener sectors. Instead of offering a real strategy to move away from oil, the government talks about supporting this industry into a low-emission future; in short, it wants to continue pumping oil while trying to do as little damage as possible. The time for such nonsense is over.

To meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, we need to immediately stop financing the development of new oil and gas projects. These are not my words, but those of the International Energy Agency, which cannot be accused of being ideologically anti-oil. We must urgently reorient these investments toward the sectors of the future. However, as I said before, to do that, stakeholders from all sectors must seriously do their part.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is pretty open to supporting Bill C‑235, currently before us, since several federal ministers would be required to work in partnership with the provinces and the private sector to bring in an action plan to develop a green and modern economy in the Prairies. This is a step in the right direction. As they are developing the action plan, I invite the ministers to consult the Bloc Québécois' proposals, where they might find the inspiration that they have quite clearly been lacking so far, unfortunately.

Getting back to the bill, it talks about transparency regarding climate risks. We need to leverage savings by making green RRSPs more tax efficient than RRSPs that include investments in fossil fuels, in order to free up a huge amount of capital to finance the green shift. Billions of dollars need to be freed up. Public funds will be a crucial aspect, but they will be insufficient. We absolutely must invite the financial sector to take up this challenge.

In the shift we are proposing, some see only costs, complications and bureaucracy. However, the economic benefits of a green transition are numerous, first of all by allowing the development of cutting-edge technologies and industries. As we know, Quebec is full of forward-thinking creators. The green transition will be lucrative. Investors will therefore have access to more dynamic and promising assets, rather than assets whose performance is condemned to plunge, as well as to a more stable financial sector.

We are certainly facing a huge task, but this is a historic opportunity to lead a strong and radical, but beneficial and incredibly motivating, transformation. Many of my colleagues here certainly claim that they entered politics to change the world. We have heard that many times. Now is the time to be on the side of the visionaries and agents of progress.

I will close by thanking the sponsor of this bill for trying to put a bit of pressure on his government. That takes courage. I assure him of our support in this matter. We will vote in favour of this bill, and we will co-operate with all initiatives and all attempts to facilitate the urgent and inevitable transition to renewable energy.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that whatever happens to this bill, tomorrow or beyond, from my perspective it has already performed a wonderful piece of service because we have been witnessing, over the past hour or so, a debate in the Parliament of Canada about the future of the Prairie economy that resonates not only with people who live on the prairie, but also with people from Quebec, British Columbia and all over the country. To be able to focus the parliamentary mind on the future of prairie Canada, in the context of all of the regions of this diverse, disparate and magnificent country, is so satisfying.

I could take some of the quotes from all of the members who spoke today and say they might have been speaking for me and for the intent of the bill. For instance, “Better coordination on the Prairies”, said the member for Abitibi-Témiscamingue. “Solutions for communities who want action”, he said, and “Access to markets.” “Lasting sustainable action.” “The federal government has an important role to play in the development of a sustainable economy on the prairie, as it has for every region of the country.” There was then a very interesting set of ideas on green finance.

This is exactly the kind of debate and the framework that is envisioned in this bill, not in 45 minutes of discussion on the floor of the Parliament of Canada, but in hundreds of discussions, in city councils, within the councils of provincial decision-making, with the indigenous communities and in the private sector, which is going to have to take the lead.

I also welcomed comments from the member for Victoria about supporting workers in transition. Of course, we can talk about economic development all we want and about wealth creation, but if the very basis and motivation of that creation is not the creation of good jobs for our people, then it is a bit empty and does not lead to where we want to be, which is prosperity that is rooted in sustainability right across the region.

I love her expression “a green new deal”. Maybe I like it so much because I am just reading a biography of FDR at this moment. There is incredible vision. Other members have spoken about it being time for visionary politics. The vision FDR had in 1933, and throughout his presidency, really created an entire new social structure and way of doing business in the United States and is instructive for all of us. For this debate to talk about a “new green deal” is one of the reasons why it was introduced in the first place.

I would say to my friend, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, that I think we should talk at committee about the importance of agriculture in the Prairies. I am sure that there will be ways of ensuring the bill not only refers to agriculture, as it should, but also the role of agriculture in the new Prairie economy, because people sometimes forget that in that region of the country we are growing what the world wants and needs, not the least of which is protein: It is food and sustainable sources of what it takes to sustain life itself.

When people ask me what I think the impact of this bill might be, I say that it has a wide range. It could be from absolutely zero, to changing the way we do business as a nation, or something in between, which is more likely. What it requires is what has been referred to by everybody who has spoken in this debate, which is an understanding that those of us in public office, or in positions of community leadership are at the table with indigenous communities, those in universities and on the cutting edge of research in value-added agriculture, and those in the life sciences where there is so much leadership in Prairie Canada.

I want to thank members for their support. Sometimes that support was expressed as an admiration for the spirit of the bill and in other cases even clause-by-clause language has been used to express its aspiration.

I look forward to moving this bill on to a vote and to committee, and I thank my colleagues very much for engaging in a debate about a green Prairie economy.

[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 would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask for a recorded division, please.

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

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 1, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Foreign Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, last Tuesday, May 24, was the global day of prayer for China. It was also Cardinal Joseph Zen's day in court in Hong Kong on charges of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” for his work with a fund established to provide legal aid to democracy protesters facing prosecution. These charges are arbitrary and political. Cardinal Bo, the Myanmar president of the Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences, said it best: “In any system where the rule of law exists, providing assistance to help people facing prosecution meet their legal fees is a proper and accepted right. How can it be a crime to help accused persons have legal defense and representation?”

The night after his court appearance, Cardinal Zen offered mass. He prayed for Christians in mainland China who were facing persecution at the hands of the Chinese Communist Party.

Religious communities in China have been facing persecution since the CCP took power, from strict laws restricting religious practice and the arbitrary detention of believers, to altering holy texts, to efforts to co-opt and control religious bodies. Under the premise of public health restrictions, now the Chinese government has cracked down on people's right to leave their home for any reason, including for religious worship.

The last time I asked the parliamentary secretary about this matter, he told me that as his government engages in Canada's relationship with China, “there are no more important issues than Canadian values and Canadian rights”. He did not, however, specifically address the arrest of Cardinal Zen or the cases of those arrested along with him. Sometimes it is easier for the government to talk about talking about human rights than to actually talk about human rights directly, so I hope that tonight we will hear clear and specific support for Cardinal Zen and condemnation of his arrest.

Cardinal Zen embodies virtues that Canadians of all backgrounds hold dear. He is a fearless advocate not only for religious freedom in China, but also for political freedom. He has been a champion of the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong for decades and an unwavering defender of truth, freedom and justice. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democratic rights and political rights are all concepts that Canadians, of course, hold in high esteem.

The situation in Hong Kong has been deteriorating since 1997, but the past three years have shown us the lengths that the CCP will go in order to suppress dissenting voices, which is in violation of the explicit commitments that it made in the context of the handover. Cardinal Zen embodies values that Canadians hold dear and that the CCP seeks to quash. This 90-year-old is still deemed a threat to the CPP. He continues to inspire and give hope to Hong Kongers during some of their darkest days.

It was an honour for me to meet Cardinal Zen in 2017, along with Jimmy Lai, Anson Chan, Martin Lee, Joshua Wong and many of Hong Kong's other heroes. They continue to inspire me every day.

Tonight, I hope to hear the government express its clear support for Cardinal Zen, Denise Ho and others facing arbitrary detention, and hope to see it clearly stand up for human rights in Hong Kong and beyond.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, in recent years, Canada has observed a dramatic decline in the human rights and fundamental freedoms enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong.

Canada first raised its concerns in November 2018, when it provided a recommendation to “Ensure the right of Hong Kong people to take part in government, without distinction of any kind” as part of the universal periodic review of China conducted under the auspices of the UN Human Rights Council.

Since then, the situation in Hong Kong has continued to worsen.

On June 30, 2020, the Chinese central government imposed its national security law on Hong Kong without the engagement of its own institutions. The chilling effects of the new law and the growing restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly have been felt across civil society, academic institutions, business and media, leading to a rise in unrest and protests on the streets of Hong Kong.

The lack of clear definitions in that law and the language about its potential extraterritorial application to persons outside of Hong Kong have also raised alarm bells about the increasing reach of the Chinese central government beyond its borders.

In response to these troubling developments, on July 3, 2020, Canada undertook a series of measures to address these concerns. These included: suspending the Canada-Hong Kong extradition agreement, stopping exports of sensitive items and updating our travel advice and advisories for Hong Kong.

In addition, on November 12, 2020, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada announced new immigration measures aimed at youth from Hong Kong by offering a new open work permit and broadening their pathways to Canadian permanent residency.

On February 4, 2021, IRCC then announced that Hong Kong residents would be able to apply for new open work permits beginning on February 8.

The Government of Canada later implemented two further pathways to permanent residence for young Hong Kong residents in June 2021.

Canada has never shied away from expressing clear views about human rights in China and expressing our support for Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy under the basic law and the one country, two systems framework.

Most recently, on May 9, 2022, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, together with G7 counterparts, issued a joint statement underscoring grave concern over the selection process for the chief executive in Hong Kong. This process was a stark departure from the basic law's intent of election by universal suffrage and further erodes the ability of Hong Kong residents to be legitimately represented.

We are under no illusions that authorities in China share our assessment about the worsening situation in Hong Kong, which is why we are fully committed to working with our international partners and standing together with those who are seeking support. Canada and Hong Kong have long-standing people-to-people ties going back over 100 years, contributing to the diverse fabric of our country. The upcoming 25th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong on July 1 will be an important moment for reflection about the future of the city and its people.

We reserve the right to respond to any future developments as we deem necessary.

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

Madam Speaker, respectfully, it was not a trick question. I asked the member about the arbitrary detention of a religious leader and in another case the arbitrary detention of a Canadian citizen.

The member talked on and on, reading a response about how the government has allegedly never shied away from talking about human rights, yet he failed to address the specific cases that I asked about. We have to look no further than the response that was just read to see evidence of the government shying away from talking about human rights.

I want to ask the member to have the courage to deviate from the paper that he has been given and to actually speak about the cases of Cardinal Zen of Denise Ho, people who are trying to speak about democracy and human rights and who face imprisonment in violation of the basic law because of their advocacy. Could the member name those names and address the cases?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I have said, Canada has never shied away from standing up for human rights in China or from urging the Chinese government to uphold international standards, norms and values.

Our voice, alongside those of our partners, has been heard. A growing coalition of countries around the world has joined our calls for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong. Canada will continue to work with international partners to persuade China to live up to its international obligations.

We reserve the right to respond to any future developments as we deem necessary.

The Environment

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

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in adjournment proceedings to pursue a question I asked on March 28 during question period at two o'clock in the afternoon the day before we were expecting the emissions reduction plan from the federal government.

My question to the minister was about what we were to make of the fact that there would be an announcement on March 29, knowing that by April 4 there would be a new IPCC report that could well make the emissions reduction plan outdated and require immediate overhaul. Not surprisingly, the parliamentary secretary who responded felt that we were really on track, but the parliamentary secretary did say that we will need to do more.

With the three minutes I have remaining in my opening statement for tonight's adjournment proceedings, I will be brutally honest about the science and where we stand. There is no sugar-coating this. It is not easy. I do not say these things because I want people to be afraid or because I want people to despair, but I desperately want people to wake up, particularly the people who have the power to make the decisions over whether my children and grandchildren will survive on a livable, habitable planet, or endure unthinkable deprivations from climate breakdown.

What we did not know when I asked that question on March 28 was what the third working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would say in its sixth assessment report, and it advanced the clock. It advanced our timetable more than I had expected. It shook me, and I have been working on the climate issue since 1986, when I was with Environment Canada.

What the IPCC said was that to hold to 1.5°C, which is the target of the Paris Agreement, and at most we must try to, at the very least, stay as far below a 2°C possible global average temperature increase above what it was before the beginning of the industrial revolution. They are hard concepts to get our heads around and long to describe. What the IPCC said on April 4 makes the government's plan from March 29 completely useless. Doing better, doing more and trying hard means nothing if we miss the main point.

The main point is this: The IPCC now says that we must ensure that between 2020 and, at the latest, before 2025, all around the world we must ensure that we stop addition and start subtraction. It is math; it is a carbon budget. We cannot go up anymore. We must peak and go down, and go down rapidly, such that by 2030 we would globally be emitting about half of the greenhouse gases that we did in 2010, or else. This is the part that gets hard. If we do not do that, we run the risk of hitting tipping points in the atmosphere that we cannot predict, which could lead to unstoppable, self-accelerating global warming.

At the very least, we can look at what is happening right now to us, including here in Ottawa, with a very dangerous storm that killed 11 people. People did not see that coming. That is when we are at 1.1°C global average temperature increase. The heat dome in British Columbia killed 600 people in four days was also at 1.1°C. We have had wild fires and floods. We see what is happening at 1.1°C global average temperature increase and we are pretending that we have it under control, as we stand at the very edge of too late, and because it is not too—

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

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I agree with her that the recent IPCC report is a stark reminder of the impact of climate change. As climate impacts intensify, it is only becoming more obvious that moving to a clean net-zero economy is critical to protecting the well-being of Canadians and communities and securing Canada's economic future.

At COP26, Canada announced that it would take additional action to significantly reduce GHG emissions from the oil and gas sector by setting emission caps. At COP26, Canada also joined over 100 countries in signing the global methane pledge to reduce global anthropogenic methane emissions by 30% by 2030. Canada will lead the way on oil and gas methane by going beyond our current target of 40% to 45% reduction by 2025 to reduce emissions by 75% by 2030.

As countries and businesses around the world move rapidly toward net-zero emissions, more ambition is needed today to ensure that Canada is not left behind and can secure a foothold in the low-carbon future.

In 2021, as the hon. member knows, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act became law. The act enshrines Canada's commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, establishes Canada's 2030 target as the first key milestone for this path and ensures a transparent and accountable process in meeting our climate objectives.

The 2030 emissions reduction plan, or the ERP, was established on March 29 and is the first of many to come under the act. The ERP is about more than achieving incremental GHG emission reductions to reach Canada's 2030 target; it is also about putting in place foundational measures to ensure that Canada's future not only is carbon-neutral, but makes energy alternatives more affordable and creates new, sustainable job opportunities for workers. The ERP includes a suite of new mitigation measures and strategies, building on the foundation set by the pan-Canadian framework and the 2020 strengthened climate plan and considering the best available science, indigenous knowledge and the advice of the net-zero advisory body.

Achieving Canada's climate objectives will be a whole-of-economy and whole-of-society effort. Every economic sector has a role to play and a responsibility to reduce emissions, but the pathway to achieving emission reductions will look different for each. The 2030 ERP takes into account this reality, sets out guideposts for each sector to further reduce emissions, and highlights the measures and strategies toward emission reductions of 40% below 2005 levels.

Finally, the hon. member will know that the emissions reduction plan includes $9.1 billion of new federal investments, on top of the $100 billion that has already been invested since 2015, very important investments indeed in climate action.

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

Madam Speaker, with one minute left, let me be very clear with my friend, the parliamentary secretary. Net zero by 2050 is fraud. Net zero by 2050 is fraud in the absence of the targets I mentioned earlier: peaking well before 2025, dropping in half by 2030, not adding, only subtracting.

Approving Bay du Nord is adding. Building the TMX pipeline is adding. Having an emissions reduction plan that says that by 2030 Canada's production of oil and gas will go up by 21% is adding. What is it adding? It is adding to the almost certainty that my grandchildren will not be on a livable world because too many people thought it was too hard to do what must be done. I will not give up on the government doing the right thing, because the Liberals must know better. They must know better than what they are doing.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, with respect, we are subtracting by investing in nature and natural climate solutions to deliver additional emission reductions and making significant new investments to support a sustainable future for Canadian farmers. Further, the Government of Canada is driving down carbon pollution from the oil and gas sector with an emissions cap. Following consultations, the cap will be designed to lower emissions at a pace and scale needed to achieve net zero by 2050 and put Canada in a position to achieve Canada's climate goals and seize new economic opportunities.

Housing

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canada is faced with a housing crisis and we have to address this issue, which in no small part was a result of the federal Liberal government walking away from the national housing program in 1993. Soon after that, we saw the financialization of the housing market take root. This is when corporations and wealthy investors make big money by putting people out of homes. They buy up rental housing units, often older buildings, renovict everyone and jack up the rent. This is what the financialization of housing means, and it has to stop.

REITs alone have grown from owning zero residential units in apartment buildings in 1996 to nearly 200,000 in the year 2020. In total, the largest 25 financial landlords held about 330,000 suites last year, which is nearly 20% of the country's private purpose-built stock of rental apartments. According to researcher Steve Pomeroy, for every one affordable housing unit created by government funding, 15 become unaffordable due to the financialization of rental housing.

Right here in Ottawa, we are seeing 300 tenants at Manor Village be renovicted by their corporate landlord. The fallout is on the residents, who find themselves without a home. A senior named Peggy has lived there for 30 years. She is a fixed-income senior. People like Peggy are at the mercy of huge corporations and wealthy investors who are fuelling the housing crisis. Rich investors should not be allowed to buy up affordable rental units, force existing tenants out of their homes and jack up the rent to unaffordable levels.

Canadians need the government to fix the mess it helped to create. The reality is that, left unchecked, the government cannot possibly build affordable housing units as fast as wealthy investors can buy them, hike up the prices and use the housing market to make money off of Canadians. For decades, Liberals and Conservatives have created a rigged system where wealthy investors profit and Canadians pay the price.

That is why the NDP is calling on the government to take immediate action to stop corporate landlords and REITs from treating our housing market like a stock market. New Democrats are calling on the government to stop the financialization of housing by putting in place a moratorium on the acquisition of affordable homes by REITs and other corporate landlords. We are also calling on the Liberals to put in place an acquisition fund to allow non-profits or land trust organizations to purchase rental buildings when they come on the market.

Changes must be made on how REITs are taxed, as well. The government is essentially giving massive tax breaks to wealthy investors: seven of the largest apartment-owning REITs in Canada have saved a combined $1.5 billion through federal tax loopholes. The government must close these loopholes.

Amendments should be made to the Income Tax Act to require landlords to disclose in their tax filings the rent they received pre- and post-renovations and to pay a proportional surtax if the rent is excessive. Attacking the Bank of Canada, as the Conservative leader front-runner wants to do, is not going to fix the financialization of the housing crisis. A meagre foreign-owner tax will not do it either, but a moratorium on purchases—

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

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing)]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Vancouver East for her advocacy on affordable housing. This is an issue of great concern for our government, so I am glad to have the opportunity to explain how we are addressing it through our 10-year and over $72-billion national housing strategy.

This plan is creating housing to suit every need in Canada, from shelter and transitional housing to community housing to market rentals, and is helping to keep the dream of home ownership within reach of young families. Most of this strategy's program focuses on our most vulnerable populations. This includes the rapid housing initiative, which is already creating over 10,000 deeply affordable units for the most vulnerable. This includes 88 new units opened in the member's city of Vancouver in March, thanks to a $30-million federal investment.

We are not stopping there. Through budget 2022, we are extending the RHI to create an additional 6,000 units. At the same time, we also need to address the issue of housing affordability for middle-income Canadians. In many of our cities, the people who work hard to keep communities running can no longer afford to live in them. Many teachers, nurses, store clerks and construction workers find it impossible to live, work and make ends meet in their urban centres. Even smaller cities and towns outside major urban hubs are seeing costs rise as more and more families leave the big cities. This is unacceptable. It threatens the well-being of middle-class citizens and their families.

The rental construction financing initiative that my colleague mentioned helps those who do not qualify for assisted housing but still cannot afford the escalating prices of market rent. It encourages a stable supply of rental housing for middle-class families in expensive housing markets. This includes many of the people who are essential workers and who have played an invaluable role in our communities, especially throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

The program provides low-cost construction loans for 10-year terms. This gives developers stable, predictable funding in the early stages of development. In my colleague's riding of Vancouver East, it has created more than 400 units of rental housing, all near public transit, workplaces and community services.

However, we recognize there is more to do to improve affordability. That is why, through budget 2022, we announced that the RCFI will target a goal of having at least 40% of the units it supports provide rent equal to or lower than 80% of the average market rent in local communities going forward.

We will not rest until we ensure that every Canadian has a safe and affordable place to call home.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, in question period on March 21, I asked the government why 90% of the funding under the rental construction financing initiative went to for-profit developers and why the units being built often ended up being 30% to 120% above the average market rent. I called on the government to change the requirements to ensure that housing units built under this program are substantially below market rent, and reforms were included in the agreement the NDP entered into with the Liberals.

I am glad the confidence and supply agreement has significantly reformed the RCFI, including changing the eligibility for the program to under 80% of average market rent and allowing for loans to be forgiven when rent is below this minimum threshold. The change also includes an increase in the percentage of units per building that need to meet that criteria, from 20% to 40%. By way of comparison, let us say no changes were made. Rent based on the Liberals' affordability definition under the old RCFI was $2,294 in Vancouver per month. Under the new agreement—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.