Debates of May 31st, 2022

Opposition Motion—Canada Research Chairs Program

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

We must resume debate. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to a very sensitive subject, but it is a very important subject.

I want to note that I will be splitting my time.

Different members of the House have different experiences with the issue of racism. Quite obviously it is not something that I experience myself, but I think that for those of us who have close personal relationships or perhaps are married to someone from a racialized background, our eyes get opened to certain things in the context of those relationships that deepen our sense of commitment to addressing them.

This is a very important conversation we are having about how we can address issues of injustice and racism while also ensuring that our systems and institutions are protecting access in an equitable way.

I want to just read the motion coming from the Bloc. The motion says:

That:

(a) the House denounce all forms of discrimination;

(b) in the opinion of the House,

(i) research is necessary for the advancement of science and society in general,

(ii) access to the Canada Research Chairs Program must be based on the candidates’ skills and qualifications; and

(c) the House call on the government to review the program's criteria to ensure that grants are awarded based on science and not based on identity criteria or unrelated to the purpose of the research.

Essentially, what this motion is saying is that it condemns discrimination. It takes the view that research chair grants should be awarded on the basis of science and not on the basis of the identity criteria of the individuals involved.

On the face of it, and I do not think I have ever said this about a proposal from the Bloc before, it seems eminently reasonable and desirable that the decisions made in awarding positions or research grants be based not on identity criteria, but on the work and the products individuals are putting forward. This motion expresses an ideal that we would generally agree that we should work to as a society. It is an ideal that recognizes the equal dignity and value of all individuals, and an ideal that seeks to support and give opportunity to individuals without reference to identity markers that are not the criteria of the position.

Again, on the face of it, this is a reasonable motion that emphasizes an opposition to discrimination and a desire to move towards equality.

To dig further into it, in terms of saying that the criteria for awarding positions should not be identity markers but should be related to the work being done and a person's experience and so forth, I think it is important to acknowledge the reality of systemic racism in many of our institutions. There is the reality that people from particular backgrounds can often face barriers that are not facial barriers or officially intended as barriers but that nonetheless are unseen barriers that exist and prevent people from receiving access to certain positions.

We can see that expressed in the fact that there can be under-representation in certain spaces and overrepresentation in certain spaces. We need to acknowledge the reality of systemic racism, but the question that today's debate has been focusing on is what our response is to that recognition. Some members would say that when we have instances of discrimination, things such as binding quotas are the way to guarantee that equality.

I think a better approach, actually, rather than the one recommended, is to dig into a question of cause. It is to ask the question of why certain individuals face these barriers, and to try to discern the origins of those barriers. Maybe an example that is illustrative is of a meeting taking place. A group holds a meeting on a regular basis and it is saying it has an under-representation of people with disabilities, yet the only way to access the meeting space is to go up stairs. There is no ramp and no elevator.

In that hypothetical situation, when people are having a meeting and wonder why there is no representation of people with mobility issues, it is obvious that it is because there is a barrier preventing people from accessing that space. These are the kinds of questions we have to ask: Are there barriers that prevent people from accessing certain spaces that we are not paying sufficient attention to?

Can we solve that problem by introducing a quota or a regulatory requirement? A better way to say it is, can we try to understand what that cause is and address that cause directly? In the case of the hypothetical example I am using we would ask if we could put in a ramp, make renovations or hold the meeting in a different place so that it was more accessible.

Let us acknowledge the reality that there is a problem of systemic racism. Let us acknowledge that the equal treatment of groups or individuals who face barriers does not necessarily lead to equity. We need to recognize when there is not an intentional differential treatment, but in effect a differential treatment because of the barriers that exist that are particularly applied, or are applied in a particular way, to some communities as opposed to others, which still requires us to try to understand and examine the root causes.

I do not see anything in the motion the Bloc has put forward that is inconsistent with the question of trying to confront issues of systemic discrimination and barriers as they exist. What I think this motion is saying, on the other hand, is this. If we have positions where we say that only people of certain backgrounds can apply, or there is a mandatory level of representation that has to exist, that is not confronting the issues of what the barriers are. It is not confronting the broader problems. I would say as well that when we put in those kinds of requirements, the individuals who get those positions as a result of those requirements obviously benefit, but they do not address the broader social issues that I think are creating challenges for more people across the board.

I want to identify another issue, which is the question of how we define some of these equity categories. On the issue of race, for example, we have a North American way of understanding what particular racial groups are, yet they are defined differently in different societies. What are considered different races in some parts of the world are different from what are considered different races in North America. Of course, there are individuals who are from a broad range of different backgrounds where it would not be obvious for someone to know what category they fit into, so some of these equity programs I think risk essentializing this categorization. That raises questions and problems, such as how we define exactly who counts as being in one particular racial group or another. In some cases, the way to resolve this, or the way around this potential problem, is to say it is a question of how an individual identifies.

In the case of my children, their father is white and their mother is East Indian, so will they have access to certain programs if there is a policy of setting aside certain positions? I do not know. I guess it would be up to them to decide or define. Fundamentally, I do not want my children to grow up in a world where they are defined by someone else's arbitrary sense, or their own need to choose whether they are part of a particular category. I would prefer for us to be a society in which people are able to make choices about their own identification.

I am out of time already. Maybe I will be able to develop more of these thoughts in response to questions.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to question my colleague, whom I have gotten the chance to work with in some capacities. I would say some of those capacities are my colleague's passion for protecting religious freedoms and religious rights in Canada, so I have a lot of respect for him in that regard. I am wondering if I can get his comments and feedback, because I have some concerns.

I know, personally, highly qualified and well-trained people who used to live in Quebec who have moved to Ontario in recent times due to the change in laws in Quebec. Could Quebec, as I fear, face a smaller capacity or population of diversity in that province, and therefore find it even harder to be able to fill positions of diversity?

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

Madam Speaker, I think my hon. friend is maybe dancing around Quebec's Bill 21 a bit, so if that is the question, I have been on the record repeatedly saying that I strongly disagree with Bill 21.

My own province of Alberta has certainly been blessed by francophone immigration. We see many people coming to Alberta from all over the world, and I think our province has been well served not only by a policy that says people are free to practice their faith while working in the public service, but we have tended to have a very open policy in terms of school choice, and allowing different minority faith and language programs to be represented within our education system. I think that has been a great source of strength for us as a province, and it has been about diversity, choice and freedom, and part of the result of that is that anglophones, francophones and people from other language groups are choosing to come to our province in large numbers.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, speaking from my own university experience, especially on the research side, it is an extremely competitive environment.

Never—or hardly ever—would a university turn down a candidate with high research potential who will publish and make the university look good regardless of that candidate's skin colour or ethnic origin.

My sense is that the Liberals and the NDP think our motion presupposes that, in the absence of federal criteria, universities would engage in discriminatory hiring practices.

I think that is deeply insulting to the research community in Quebec and Canada, a community made up of highly educated people who are very much in favour of diversity.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of that. Is that kind of thinking across the way an insult to our institutes of higher learning?

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

Madam Speaker, respectfully, the point I would make on this is a bit more subtle. It is to say that there are barriers that people face that are not necessarily the result of the intention of somebody to discriminate. There may be issues of unconscious bias or there may be structural issues that lead to an effect of discrimination without there being an intent to discriminate, but my point is also that the solution to that problem is not saying we should slap a band-aid on and have quotas. My solution to that problem is saying we should do everything we can to understand what the root causes of those barriers are and try to remedy them. That is important not only for those who would otherwise benefit from a quota, but for everybody society-wide, if we could try to understand and confront those root causes.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the mention of unconscious bias by the member. He is asking about the underlying root problems. There is a lot of research about that and unconscious bias, and there is actually something called the Matilda effect in the science community that I would encourage the member to look at, if he has not.

My question is around who is adjudicating and deciding. We have a lot of talk in industry about meritocracy, skills, knowledge and ability, but really it is about who is adjudicating and deciding who has skills, knowledge and ability.

Could the member talk just a bit about this myth: the fallacy around meritocracy, what he thinks about who adjudicates, and what impact that has on who gets chosen?

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

Madam Speaker, I think meritocracy is an ideal. We want to live in a society where everybody is judged based on merit, but we have to also acknowledge that we are inevitably going to be imperfect in living out that ideal of meritocracy. That is why we need to try to understand and respond to various issues. It is not that meritocracy is not desirable. Of course it is, but we should not presume that we are living it out perfectly. We should continually be working toward it.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place and speak to the issues that are facing Canadians. I appreciate the opportunity to listen to this debate over the course of the last number of hours. I certainly appreciate the fact that the House is able to address some of the serious issues that face our nation, such as things like discrimination and racism, while also touching on, as this motion does, the quality of Canada's research and ensuring that there are processes that are not only condemning and denouncing racism, but also talking about how research and academia is able to be conducted fairly.

I would simply note and share first what I think would be valuable, which is a story, and this is a very recent story. Just a number of hours ago, I had a chance to speak with a group of young people who are in town for the National Prayer Breakfast, an event that the Prime Minister attended and spoke at this morning, along with the Leader of the Opposition and other representation from across government. It is certainly very powerful, as a Christian, to see our nation come together in prayer. It was a very powerful time this morning.

This group of young people I spoke with a few short hours ago are a part of a program that is associated with the National Prayer Breakfast, which brings young leaders together from across Canada. I will summarize what was said because I certainly would not want the stories they shared to come back and impact the individuals who shared them. This group of individuals, people of colour, from eastern Canada shared some of their experiences. One woman in particular talked about the clear difference between words, programs, quotas and the nice ideas of ensuring that there is equality, and actual acceptance and opportunity in the workplace.

This individual works for a level of government and implored me to ensure I do what I can to encourage action so there is equity of opportunity, so it is not simply a program where an HR individual or public servant in the field of HR, when conducting initial hiring or doing assessments, simply checks off boxes, but that they address some of the root causes of some of the discrimination that exists. This individual, over the course of our conversation, shared how although in a workplace that talks the talk, it does not necessarily walk the walk, even though there are things such as quotas.

My overall message, as I look at this and in ensuring that we address some of the significant issues surrounding the discrimination that does exist in this country, is to ensure that we do not simply talk or have a band-aid solution, as my colleague aptly referenced. We do not simply put a band-aid on it and say there has to be a certain number of people with a certain designation, whether it be race or another factor, while not addressing the root of what is causing the challenges. It could be systemic, implicit bias or whatever the case may be. On behalf of this young woman, a public servant working for a level of government, let us not look at band-aid solutions.

Let us address the real and root causes of discrimination. As Conservatives, we talk a lot about freedom. We also acknowledge that when it comes to the idea of freedom and we have a conversation about trying to get somebody ahead by holding somebody back, we see that ultimately there is a loser. My encouragement is that we ensure we can create an economy and a public service where everybody is given that equity, that equal opportunity to ensure that we can have a diverse workforce representative of Canada and ensure that some of these significant challenges are addressed.

I would like to mention some accusations I have heard often and heard today about the Conservative Party and about the Bloc Québécois. Certainly when it comes to the Conservative Party, I am proud to be part of a party that has a strong history of seeing individuals empowered. There has been one female prime minister in this country. That prime minister was a Conservative. I am proud of that legacy. There have been a number of leaders of our party who have also been women. The current interim leader of the opposition has shared on numerous occasions how proud she is that she was selected, not based on her gender but because she was the most qualified for the job.

Certainly, I find it ironic that there are those who come from privileged positions who would suggest that somehow those who have made it to the top, who were chosen, are somehow less valuable when they are given those positions. There are many examples and many firsts that this party has had in terms of ethnicities, individuals who have taken their place in the chamber, who have served in cabinet positions or who have been a first for those ethnic communities in our country. I am very, very proud to be part of a party that has seen those firsts in this country. As well, various Conservative former prime ministers have appointed some minorities to be senators who have done incredible work.

Just to come full circle here, I would note that there is a very relevant study that the ethics committee, which I am honoured to be a member of, is currently undertaking about racial bias in facial recognition technology. As the previous speaker mentioned, some barriers do exist. I know that as my time is short, I cannot get into some of the details and, quite frankly, reveal what could very aptly be described as systemic racism. In some cases, it is very, very overt, which is backed up by the numbers. There is a very troubling trend in addressing the realities that exist for certain communities and people of colour in this country.

The motion today, I believe, is quite reasonable. It denounces discrimination. It talks about research, its necessity and that it should be based on those who are most qualified. I am paraphrasing, but it ensures that the government does not use exclusive criteria to hold certain people back while trying to advance the cause of others. I would simply repeat what was shared by the individual I referenced earlier: Let us not look for a band-aid solution. Let us not simply talk.

Instead of things like quotas and some of the details of the story that I will not get into out of respect for the privacy of this individual, let us ensure that in an effort that is—

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

We are going to run out of time for questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Brampton North.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will ask my colleague what he thinks would be a good solution.

He called this a band-aid solution. My fear is that if we do not set some type of goal, we will never really get there. I am a little skeptical about the idea that without requirements or criteria in place, all provinces would improve their institutions and make sure that people do not have barriers, because we have seen for so long that institutions and corporations do not necessarily take that initiative unless there is some reason to do so. I think this could be a motivating factor for them to do so.

What does the member have to say?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, forgive me, but I would simply say that I am very skeptical that a heavy-handed approach from a government based in the capital city of an incredibly large and diverse country like Canada would be the solution to the challenges that are faced.

There are 1,000 solutions to the very significant challenges that exist in empowering young people. When it comes to my political involvement, whether it be personally as a young person or now as I endeavour to ensure that young women and diverse communities are given every opportunity possible, not because they are a certain gender or ethnicity but because they are passionate about this country, I want to ensure they have all the opportunities that should be afforded to Canadians to give them the ability to succeed in our country.

Forgive me if I return the skepticism. To suggest that a heavy-handed approach by our government, which has been shown to perpetrate some of the worst acts of discrimination in world history—

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

It being 6:11 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

[Chair read text of motion to House]

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.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud and honoured to request a recorded division on the motion.

[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.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at the time for Private Members' Business so that we can resume with the business of the House.

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

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from March 4, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Building a Green Prairie Economy Act

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-235.

This is an interesting bill. The bill presented by my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre basically tells his government to better organize its actions in the prairie provinces. I salute his courage. He knows that his government does not have an action plan to effectively combat the effects of climate change. He also knows that financial investments must be redirected. He is therefore calling on the ministers of his government, starting with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Natural Resources and any minister responsible for the economic development of any of the prairie provinces. The message is clear. In other words, the member is telling the government to get its act together.

Many reports have been written over the past 20 years. Many governments have come and gone, and action has yet to be taken. I understand the frustration of my colleagues in the House. The Bloc Québécois has said so, and we have voted on this issue many times. We must be rigorous and act intelligently when it comes to the environment.

Not a day goes by without there being an article about climate change, and even climate catastrophe. Climate change amplifies the natural risks we already face, like floods, storms, heatwaves, droughts, and so on. This causes increasingly frequent and more extreme disasters.

For some 30 years now, here, in the House, members of the Bloc Québécois have been informing their colleagues of the consequences of the decisions that governments put off until later. In that vein, I applaud my former colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who was ahead of his time on these issues. The important thing is that we need to be ready to deal with the current and future impacts of climate change. This seemed necessary to us, and it still does. We are right in the middle of a global realization that is leading to changes in consumer preferences, innovation, economic activity, competitive advantages and wealth creation, among other things.

The member's bill represents a solution for communities that feel the need to change course immediately. Consumers are increasingly demanding goods and services with a small environmental footprint. Climate-smart innovations are only marginal solutions. They are becoming a huge opportunity for the global market and creating quality jobs. With these changes, sound environmental stewardship is becoming increasingly associated with market access and becoming a key source of sustainable competitive advantages.

We cannot stall any longer. There is no doubt that we need to propose real action to fight climate change. Obviously, serious measures need to be considered, and they are especially crucial in the provinces referred to in this bill, particularly because they are amongst the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. It would be hard to oppose a bill that establishes a framework to compel the western provinces to get in line and calls on the government to report to Parliament and to be accountable. I simply must point out my usual concern that provincial jurisdictions must be respected.

I believe this bill is an opportunity to shed light on the money that the oil industry is currently receiving and to keep track of the projects. The sponsor of this bill knows that an economy based on oil and gas development is not sustainable in the long term, that these provinces are facing decline unless they diversify their economies and begin a greener energy shift. The sooner they start, the less painful it will be. There is no doubt that Quebec has made tremendous efforts. Its industry is in the process of making an industrial shift towards electrification and the development of a green industry.

It is important to remember that huge sums of money have been invested in the oil companies. In fact, the western provinces benefit greatly from the federal government's investments. Is our colleague from Winnipeg South Centre illustrating that the money is not being used to help the western provinces make a real green shift? As the old saying goes, you have to follow the money. It is so obvious that this money is not going to communities and businesses that want to make the necessary energy transition and change their habits.

There are many measures that are part of the solutions for growing a green economy. The western provinces have a much longer way to go because they are determined to hold on to an economy from bygone industrial days. I agree with my colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, on the fact that the different governments, whether federal, provincial or territorial, must play an important role.

I was talking about investments in the electrification of transportation. In Quebec and even Ontario to some extent, the federal government could invest in trade corridors and approve a number of signature projects that focus on a green economy, by providing a supply of green fuel or even supporting projects that promote electricity produced in Quebec.

The various ports on the Great Lakes and along the St. Lawrence River represent an unavoidable link in the supply chains of several industries, so this is certainly a strategic investment that provides a distinct advantage for businesses in every industry whose products, both inputs and end products, come through these places. I commend the leadership of the Port of Montreal on that.

The government will have to finance the development of the electrification of heavy vehicles and contribute to converting fleets of trucks and equipment, such as vehicles used for moving containers to their destination. The electrification of modes of transportation for Canada Post could be a good example, as could the installation of electric charging stations everywhere, in every village in Quebec.

When the federal government does that, then every business and SME will benefit from the economic spinoffs from these strategic investments.

Automation plays a part in making this industrial shift more effective, but also in countering the labour shortage that is affecting many industries.

I want to point out the importance of corporate social labelling.

In an era when consumers are increasingly critical and aware of the efforts that businesses should be making to use safer methods and protect the environment, it is not surprising that businesses are focusing more and more on all the links in the supply chain. That is why it is important to keep investing in businesses that strive to be better citizens for our planet. Businesses that cultivate their social label will have a distinct advantage in this green economy.

With regard to green financing, can Quebec grow as a result of its financial services moving to invest in greener businesses, those working to reduce their carbon emissions? Most definitely. My colleague from Mirabel spoke about this when we studied this bill, and he could talk about it for hours because he has studied the impact on Quebec.

Let us consider what Canada's banks are currently doing. For years, they have had a big stake in oil. Canada's big five banks have invested $694 billion in fossil fuels, $477 billion in loans and $217 billion in warrants.

We now know that 88% of the total went to oil and gas companies. The rest, $85 billion, went to coal. We need to start redirecting the financial sector's investments to greener, more sustainable and more promising sectors.

If we redirect a portion of the public's savings or the financial sector's investments towards renewable energies, low- or zero-emission sectors, change-resistant infrastructure to reduce climate risk, and emerging technologies rather than hydrocarbons that are doomed for demise, hundreds of billions of dollars will be made available and can be used to boost the action plan set out in Bill C‑235.

I also want to talk about local investments and economic diversification in rural areas.

I would like to give an example of some proactive work done by my office to enable an entire region to better coordinate its bio-food production. Abitibi—Témiscamingue is a region of Quebec that is further north and far from any major centres, so I understand when another MP wants to better equip his communities that are far from a major urban centre.

Global warming inspires all kinds of ideas about possibilities for better land use. Our region in particular has all kinds of potential for the coming years thanks to critical minerals in the ground and the fact that it is potentially the second-largest organic agriculture land mass.

The member talked about developing a plan that requires coordination and getting people involved so the economy serves them, and of course getting everyone on the same page from the get-go is hardly a waste of time. Doing so saves the proponent from constantly going back to the drawing board because the initial proposal lacks social acceptability. That is one of the promising aspects of this bill.

We have to consider the predominant role businesses play in our communities and do more to help resource processing startups. That will make regions like my colleague's and my own, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, more attractive. A territorial innovation fund operated by and for regions working toward the same goal makes a lot of sense.

In closing, the government made lots of promises, but it is not keeping them. Our hope is that grassroots provincial initiatives will get the support they need from our communities.

The Bloc Québécois has long called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and welcomes any measures aimed at reorienting investments toward businesses that are switching to green energy. While we are at it, why not sell Trans Mountain and invest the money into developing the Prairies—

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

The hon. member for Victoria.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the member for Winnipeg South Centre for choosing to table a bill focusing on building a low-carbon economy. This bill would require the Minister of Industry to consult about, prepare a plan for, and report on a strategy to create a green economy on the prairies. While this bill is a welcome step in the right direction, ultimately we need bolder, more concrete action if we are to truly meet the urgency and scale of the climate crisis.

My New Democrat colleagues and I support efforts to better coordinate climate action, but we expect the government to move ahead on more concrete initiatives and far sooner than the timeline proposed in this bill. The climate emergency is here now, and Canadians need their government to take real action to reduce emissions and support workers in the transition. From coast to coast to coast, we have seen the impacts of the climate crisis: devastating floods, wildfires and record-breaking heat waves. Canadians cannot afford any more delays.

I think of the work of Seth Klein, who reminds us that we need to move at a speed and scale not seen since the Second World War. The Climate Emergency Unit reminds us that we mobilized then and we can mobilize now, sound the alarm, jump-start the needed transition and transform our economy to tackle the greatest existential crisis of our time.

For every sector of society, every level of government and every one of us, this is about protecting our communities. It is about protecting our future. It is about protecting everything we hold dear. This is our opportunity to meet the biggest challenge of our time, and it is now or never.

While young people, the UN Secretary-General, our own environment commissioner and the world's top scientists are calling on us as elected officials to take real action, the unfortunate truth is that the Liberal government continues to fail to answer this call. In the words of Seth Klein, “The uncomfortable conclusion is this: Canada’s approach to climate is a hot mess of incoherence and contradictions, and it is fundamentally at odds with what the IPCC demands of us.”

However, I do welcome Bill C-235 and any initiative that works to secure a green and prosperous future. I especially welcome the parts of the bill that push for identifying innovative public transport solutions for small cities and communities; the parts that push for fostering job creation and retraining for a zero-emission green economy in regions that rely on traditional energy industries; the parts that push for developing natural infrastructure projects and using new sources of clean energy; the parts that push for integrating clean energy into agriculture, forestry, manufacturing, transportation and tourism; the parts that push for establishing programs and projects that stimulate a green economy; and last but perhaps most important, the parts that push for infrastructure projects that facilitate tackling the climate crisis.

While I welcome this bill, it is important to note that the member who tabled it, as a Liberal MP and especially as a former minister in Trudeau's cabinet, is accountable and responsible for the situation—

[An hon. member]

The member referred to the Prime Minister by name.