Debates of Nov. 8th, 2023

Public Accounts

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague, one would almost think the Conservatives are giving him hives. I can understand that, given the rhetoric we are hearing day after day. With the Conservatives, it is always something.

My colleague must be a bit of a navel-gazer. Some aspects of his speech were quite interesting, but I would like to remind him that the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development just told us that Canada is the only G7 country that has not reduced its greenhouse gas emissions since 1990.

Worse still, the government will continue to invest up to $83 billion until 2035. What does my colleague have to say about that? It seems to me that some of his remarks make no sense or are highly contradictory.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I very much value the Minister of Environment and his general attitude in making sure that Canada is on the right track. We have seen over the last few years that we are going in the right direction. As a government, we continue to be committed to reaching net zero. That is why we brought in the net-zero legislation not that long ago, perhaps 18 months or two years ago, though I am not exactly sure when it was, which also incorporated reporting mechanisms so there would be updates and reports every five years.

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

Mr. Speaker, to refresh the hon. member's memory, Bill C-12, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, was brought forward in 2021 and I voted against it because it would do absolutely nothing toward climate accountability. I know we are not debating climate tonight, but it is coming up.

The Government of Canada just found out from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development that we are not moving in the right direction. We continue to ignore the budget that really matters, which is the carbon budget. Net zero by 2050 is irrelevant if we do not hit the near-term targets by 2030, because then we will be on a trajectory to an unlivable world for our own children. It is an unforgivable and unnecessary failure.

I know the Conservatives are not helping, but I do think the Liberals owe the Conservatives a large thanks, because, if not for the Conservatives, the Liberals would not have any claim to having a better record than anybody else in the history of time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I, for one, always believe that there is room for improvement; there is no doubt about that. However, as I said, I have every confidence in the Minister of Environment and his leadership on the file, and we are moving in the right direction.

I believe that net zero is in fact achievable. I look forward to continuing to bring in and see policies through the government that will actually help lead us in that direction, whether through the Canada Infrastructure Bank and the investments it is making in co-operation with other stakeholders to direct government involvement or with things such as heat pumps.

I do recognize that the Green Party actually voted with the Liberals the other day in relation to the heat pumps and the incentives in supporting the price on pollution. I do appreciate that.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I think it is a tough job that he has to continue, and I think that endurance is admirable. However, what is not admirable is that this report outlines clearly that the commissioner found that the government actually lacked the ability to manage key risks, which prevents it from meeting its strategy by 2050.

What does the member have to say about how the government can rectify something like this? If it has a plan that says the commitment is to be net zero by 2050 but does not understand the risks associated with getting there, how is it going to be able to get there?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to report the conclusion. It does not say “all recommendations”, but six or seven of them were responded to, and there is a conclusion:

As the Government continues to strengthen its approach to greening government operations and to performance measurement and reporting under the GGS, we will take the Committee’s recommendations into account. I would like to take the opportunity to thank you and the Committee members for your important work in reviewing the report of the CESD on the Strategy.

Suffice it to say that I do believe that, at times, we see fantastic work coming out of the standing committee. I know that the respective ministers take it seriously and I believe will ensure that we continue to go in the right direction.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen day after day, actually it has been a few weeks now, the Conservatives continue their filibuster through concurrence reports in the House when these studies have taken place in committee.

Today we were supposed to be debating Bill S-9, an act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. Canada has been a leader in this area and I think the clarity that this proposed act would be providing when it comes to the list of chemical weapons is greatly needed. I was wondering what the member thinks about that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up two really good points.

First and foremost, the member recognized that the report we are talking about today has been extensively debated, talked about and analyzed thoroughly at the standing committee. So, members of Parliament would have had all sorts of opportunities to be able to contribute to that whole discussion that had taken place.

The second issue the member raised is the impact of not having a debate on Bill S-9, which is very important. Not only is it important, but I believe that all political parties in this House actually support the bill. It is a non-controversial piece of legislation. Had the Conservatives not played this game, we would have probably even seen the bill pass today, from my understanding.

It is a real shame that the Conservative Party is putting party politics over the best interests of good, sound public policy. Sadly, it is not the first time, because one of the greatest frustrations of the filibuster I have seen with the Conservative Party of Canada was on dealing with the Ukraine-Canada trade agreement, and maybe I will get some more time to expand on that point soon.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here to talk about report that was done a long time ago. Little time was given to prepare to talk about it in the House today. Unfortunately, this report was mishandled on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Let me explain.

We called witnesses and they were only able to give their opening remarks. After that, the committee was interrupted and we had to leave the room to vote. In the end, the witnesses got nowhere and left without hearing a single question or making a single comment.

Luckily, we were able to ask some of the questions at the next meeting, but suffice it to say that the subject was not a popular one. So that surprises me. I am very happy to see the Conservatives so interested in the green transition and in going green that they are now bringing back a report that they themselves mishandled.

First, let us talk about the purpose of this audit. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development was trying to establish whether the government had taken the necessary steps to meet six targets laid out in the greening government strategy. This audit therefore focused on the Treasury Board, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Transport in terms of efforts made.

The main findings are quite damning. The government simply has not put in the resources needed to achieve its targets. That is nothing new; we say it fairly often. It came as no surprise to committee members.

Another important finding is that the departments of transport and national defence have no risk management strategy. That is pretty disturbing in the 21st century. Even companies are starting to adopt a number of risk management strategies, particularly for climate risks. When we talk about climate risks, we are talking about risks that are systemic and physical. Of course, there are potential floods and risks that can completely change operations, in other words, operational risks. There are also reputational risks. There are a multitude of risks associated with climate change. Most companies are already in the process of identifying them, because they know that climate change is happening now and it will have an impact on the economy. However, government departments, which are supposed to be at the forefront, have no risk management strategy. That is a pretty scathing observation.

The next observation is that Treasury Board simply lacked the necessary data to determine whether it was going to meet its targets. Not only was it unlikely to meet them based on the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development's observations and audit, but Treasury Board had also failed to collect the necessary data. Obviously, the first step is to collect the data and then to organize, analyze and use them. This means there is no data and no analysis. Good luck advancing a strategy that way.

Furthermore, Crown corporation GHG emissions were not accounted for. I know that this topic was raised by a colleague who I am pleased to sit with on the committee. Still, the fact that Crown corporations were left out of the government's GHG tally, when they account for a large part of government, is a big problem.

Let me give a brief reminder about Crown corporations. We are talking about organizations that are responsible for implementing the government's public policies. They receive large sums of money and spend it as they see fit, without being accountable to the government or the public in the same way that government departments are required to be.

The government's new strategy is simple: spend as much money as it can in the form of tax credits or funds allocated to Crown corporations that they themselves manage. It is very simple, and no one will know where taxpayers' money is going. No one will know whether Crown corporations are participating in the greening government strategy or whether they are really trying to come up with a strategy to make a green transition. There is no way to track what Crown corporations are doing. Let us just say that it is very useful for the government.

At one of the first committee meetings, we heard from PSP Investments.

It is important to point out that this is the federal Crown corporation that manages the pension fund. In the fall of 2021, it was described as lagging behind other pension funds in terms of its sustainable development strategy. It was very difficult for parliamentarians and even for my team to get access to the actual dollar amounts for workers' pension funds. It was very hard to determine how much money was sent to oil companies in western Canada, for example, because the fossil fuel energy category was folded into the broader energy category. I think that we can all agree that investing in wind energy and investing in oil are two very different things. How are we supposed to know whether the Crown corporations are doing the right thing? At this juncture, it is basically impossible because of their lack of transparency. That is another point that was rightly raised by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.

The last point might make some people smile and others cry, unfortunately. The reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that were reported during the pandemic are purely a result of the pandemic. They had absolutely nothing to do with the government's strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That was a great finding by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.

The Conservatives are bringing up a report that, for whatever reason, they did not seem so interested in when we were in committee, but they absolutely want to debate it in the House now, more than a year later. How odd. I notice that they are bringing it up at a time when we are hearing a lot of noise about the carbon tax.

If I may, I will put on my teacher hat and give a little lesson on what is happening in Quebec in terms of fighting climate change and how it is using economic tools to fight climate change.

Quebec has a cap-and-trade system.

To reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec, the Government of Quebec applies a price per tonne of carbon emitted.

I wonder if people are following what I am saying. I am looking at a certain bench in particular to see if they are following me. I have uttered only one sentence.

Quebec's chosen strategy, which was initially implemented in 2013 and then expanded to include distributors of fossil fuel products in 2015, is a carbon market that applies to [Quebec's] major emitters. Moreover, it is worth bearing in mind that, in Quebec, road transportation has been the main source of rising greenhouse gas emissions since [then].

Instead of imposing a fixed price for each tonne of carbon emitted, the Quebec government imposes a total emissions cap and lets emitters divvy up shares of that cap among themselves.

That is why it is called a cap-and-trade system, because instead of putting a price directly on each tonne of carbon emitted, there is a quota. It is regulated by quantity, and then the market itself determines what price companies should pay per tonne of carbon.

Under this system, the government grants a certain number greenhouse gas emission allowances equal to the total amount of emissions it wants on its territory for a given period and auctions them off. The emitting businesses then have to compete to obtain allowances if their activities produce carbon. All things being equal, as the number of emission allowances goes down, based on the emissions reduction target set by the jurisdiction, their price goes up.

Among the emitters, every business distributing more than 200 litres of fuel and fossil fuels a year, or emitting more than 25,000 tonnes of CO₂, has to have emission allowances. Refineries in Quebec are also subject to the cap-and-trade system, not only for their refining activities, but also for their activities as wholesalers and distributors. However, for their refining activities, they get free allowances distributed by the Government of Quebec that cover 95% of the emissions produced, a ratio that should gradually go down.

I want to mention that in my role as a professor, I received a lot of help from the research chair on taxation and public finance, who is doing a great job working to educate the public on the effects of the cap-and-trade system.

I hope this topic will be spoken of in the House in a more logical and realistic way from now on.

To continue:

The purchase of emission allowances increases the cost of distributing fuel and is reflected in the price at the pump (affecting the price before tax). Consequently, although [cap-and-trade] levies are not directly reflected in the price of gas paid by the end purchaser, they are nonetheless paid by the end purchaser.

I think this is an important point. The consumer picks up part of the tab. That should be of interest to the people here. Consumers end up paying a small share. I will be getting to that soon. I know that everyone is waiting to find out how much the consumer pays for the cap-and-trade system in Quebec.

Here is the answer: “Therefore...since 2015, the effect of the [cap-and-trade system] on the price of a litre of gas has increased from approximately 4¢ in 2015 to nearly 9¢ in 2023”. We therefore know the impact of the cap-and-trade system on prices at the pump in Quebec.

However, experts with the Université de Sherbrooke research chair on taxation and public finance noted that:

...a portion of the tax revenue goes toward maintaining and developing the road network. In the context of fighting climate change, these fuel taxes can also be viewed as a disincentive to use this greenhouse gas-emitting product. After carefully examining the taxes levied on fuel, the authors [of the report that I am quoting] found that, in Quebec, these taxes have had a limited effect on the recent fluctuations in the price at the pump...

However, fuel is subject to other taxes, such as the GST, the QST and the excise tax. All of those taxes were considered together with the cap-and-trade system. Once all of these levies were put together, the authors found that they “have had a limited effect on the recent fluctuations in the price at the pump and that their level in constant dollars has remained stable over the past 10 years, whereas their weight in the economy is dropping and they remain relatively low in comparison to the taxes being charged elsewhere in the world”.

That is how Quebec used existing economic tools to fight climate change. The Conservatives are saying that it has been eight horrible years where everyone in Quebec has been complaining about the extra 9¢ a litre on gas. That is not the case. People have not been complaining that much. On the contrary, Quebec has accepted that it must take responsibility in the fight against climate change.

There is a very important example that shows just how well these measures are working. By 2015, Quebec had reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 8.8% compared to 1990 levels. It is working. Governments need to be able to introduce certain measures to combat climate change.

This should serve as another reminder to the House that Quebec often stands alone in fighting climate change. In 2014, Quebec linked its cap-and-trade system with California's. It had to go south of the border to find someone willing to open this carbon market with it, because unfortunately, people here in Canada were too focused on other issues to realize that fighting climate change was an important issue and that this type of economic tool works. Quebec linked its cap-and-trade system up with California's. Members may recall that Ontario joined the system with great fanfare, only to pull out two or three years later.

Quebec may have been ahead of the game back then, but this is not the first time I have said that in the House, nor will it be the last.

To set the record straight again, the cost of climate change is higher than the cost of fighting it.

I can give many examples of this. Several years ago, I had the opportunity to work as an economist at Ouranos and prepare a report commissioned by the Government of Quebec to determine how much climate change in Quebec would cost over the next 50 years. This fascinating report was published in 2015. We studied the costs of climate change and identified six areas where those costs would be especially high. In terms of infrastructure, there was the issue of permafrost. Rising temperatures are causing the ground to thaw, allowing greenhouse gases to escape more quickly. This is happening all over northern Quebec and, obviously, in the rest of Canada as well. Erosion is another area we identified. Climate change and rising water levels are eroding shorelines. As we know, erosion is very expensive.

Sometimes roads and houses have to be moved. Should a disaster hit, this can often even cause landslides.

Then there is flooding, as I mentioned. We know that with climate change, flooding will be not only more frequent but also more severe. Both the frequency and intensity of these events will increase. We know that the cost of climate change is enormous.

Another cost that we did not study at the time, but that should be studied, is the effects of climate change on forest fires. The cost of forest fires is also huge, and we in Quebec paid the price this summer. It was catastrophic. I am thinking in particular of all the forestry workers we are trying to support and the people of Abitibi-Témiscamingue and Nord-du-Québec who have suffered enormously because of these forest fires caused by climate change.

There are also health implications.

Heat waves are going to have a huge impact on health. Many seniors' residences do not even have air conditioning yet. Human lives have been lost. Unfortunately, there is a price to pay for this loss of life, because human life obviously has a value, and that value can be determined.

Then there is pollen. People tend not to think of that when they think about the economic consequences of climate change, but climate change is increasing the prevalence of allergies and reactions to pollen. Some people are highly allergic to pollen, and I am lucky not to be one of them. When these people are unable to go to work, they are obviously less productive, and that has an economic cost.

Finally, there are zoonotic diseases, diseases transmitted by animals. Rising temperatures are causing zoonotic diseases to spread in Quebec. There is West Nile virus, a virus that is transmitted by mosquitoes. As the climate changes and temperatures rise, mosquitoes are heading further and further north in Quebec and infecting more people. This has a cost. It is an extremely powerful virus, and the people who catch it become very unproductive.

Then there is Lyme disease, which is gaining a lot of ground in Quebec. If an individual who contracts this disease does not act quickly, they may have to deal with very serious consequences for many years or for the rest of their life. This disease needs to be treated quickly, but in Quebec, people may not be used to checking for symptoms of Lyme disease. When someone is bitten by a tick, they need to find out whether the tick is infected with Lyme disease, but not everyone knows that. Those are some of the economic consequences of climate change.

I want to do a quick cost-benefit analysis of measures to combat climate change. On the one hand, there is the additional cost of 9¢ per litre, and on the other hand, there are all the costs I just mentioned, which amount to billions of dollars. I will let people draw their own conclusions. I personally think that we know how to do things in Quebec, and that, in the end, we do them well. We can always ask ourselves whether or not we want to continue working with the government. Right now, we do because we want to develop a green strategy. That said, perhaps the government should take a closer look at what Quebec is doing, because we are doing pretty well, and we are proud of that.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the member's speech. She is passionate about the environment.

I know that the government is also committed to the environment. In response to the report, of course, it is laying road maps ahead as to how government departments can all reach the targets and what we are looking for. The member mentioned some of the aspects where the government has not necessarily reached the goals that are needed, but there were many areas that the government has made many improvements in.

I want to ask the member whether she feels there are areas, in construction and procurement that the government is doing, where we are doing a good job on reducing our GHG emissions.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I know there are areas in which the government has made progress. Still, if I may offer a sobering reminder, when we are barely over the starting line, it is easy to pat ourselves on the back and say we have made progress. However, there is still a long way to go, and the government needs to focus on what is left to be done.

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

Madam Speaker, as my colleague aptly pointed out, the report in question is a little out of date, but it looks at the issue of greenhouse gases and the environment, as well as the associated costs. When we go through the documents, one interesting thing we find is that there is a supplementary report. The government's response was mentioned, but the Conservatives also make recommendations, including “That TBS provide Canadian taxpayers with clear and transparent cost projections for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.”

Is this not precisely more grandstanding from the Conservatives, something we often see, for example when they talk about the carbon tax and other things only to ultimately steer us toward the conclusion that protecting the environment is costly?

In this regard, I congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that question. Often, we see that the Conservatives are not doing anything to help themselves or their country to make progress in the fight against climate change. There is a lot of filibustering. We see it in every committee. We see it in the House. Unfortunately, that does not help anyone, even their constituents, in the fight against climate change.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have spent some time with the member in our Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and I quite enjoy our time there. I find ourselves often agreeing, in particular when it comes to environmental work.

When I received the report from the environment commissioner, I was quite shocked that, with the current government in particular, which touts being one of the most environmentally friendly there has ever been, we see damning reports. How would the member rate the government on environmental issues, given the auditor's responses?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague with whom I do have the pleasure of sitting on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We definitely tend to agree on these issues.

I will not be giving the government a grade today in the House. However, I can say that, if I did, it would not be a passing grade, since the government is not even capable of achieving its own objectives. It cannot pass a test. I will not give it a grade, but, what I do know is that it would be well below 60%, which is the passing mark.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her very clear and enlightening speech on the repercussions of climate change and the social cost of not taking care of the environment. Our Conservative friends could not care less about that, but there is a social cost. My colleague talked about what that costs a society. This social cost has even been highlighted by the International Monetary Fund, or IMF. The IMF—which is not Équiterre, Greenpeace or some far-left environmental organization—published an analysis that Le Devoir reported on under the headline, “Canada's fossil fuel subsidies reached $38 billion U.S. last year [in 2022]”. The article states the following:

The vast majority of the subsidies cited by IMF researchers, or $36 billion U.S., comes primarily from public funds linked to our dependence on fossil fuels. These include the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and the associated climate crisis, the consequences of air pollution (including premature deaths), and the costs of traffic congestion and road accidents.

We are talking about $50 billion in 2022 handed over to an industry that made $200 billion in profits that same year. The math is simply unbelievable. That amounts to $50 billion in repercussions for Canada. I think my colleague gave a really brilliant outline of the $50 billion. I thank her very much.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for mentioning that figure, because it is really very important. It shows that, when it comes to the government, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.

On one hand we have a minister who is quite pleased to talk about strategy and say that it is fantastic, that the government is good and that the friends at Équiterre are happy with the government. On the other hand, $50 billion is being sent to an extremely polluting industry that pockets exorbitant profits.

It is really problematic that there is so much hypocrisy in the government, a government that does not know how to walk and chew gum at the same time. It is disastrous. As I said in my speech, if we do nothing, the cost of inaction on climate change is very high.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member can appreciate the fact that today we are having this particular concurrence motion being discussed and the Conservative Party now and on many occasions has brought in concurrence reports, which has really prevented government legislation from being passed. Today, for example, we were supposed to be dealing with Bill S-9. I believe the Bloc is actually supporting it, as are all political parties in the House.

I am wondering if the member can provide her thoughts. Much as they would not want opposition days constantly interrupted by concurrence reports, it does have a negative impact on legislation being ultimately passed. Would the member not agree?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must say that I rather agree with my hon. colleague. These repeated attempts to change the agenda and talk about certain things that, for whatever reason, are of interest to them, amount to filibustering.

The Conservatives apparently got up this morning thinking that they were very keen to talk about a greening government strategy, which was studied in committee over a year ago. Those people who watch us and follow politics a bit know that this is a broad strategy to obstruct the work of Parliament.

I think it is frankly deplorable that a party that claims to be deserving of taking power is obstructing the work of Parliament, an institution that said party is supposed to want to represent. I think it is a real shame, even though it gave me an opportunity to give a lecture on environmental economics, which I am always happy to do.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's remarks are particularly interesting and important because they shed light on a subject that is controversial in the House but usually not very controversial among the public.

My core values often lead me to say that a coin has two sides and one edge. Still, we have to want to see both sides, if only by listening to the interpretation, to get all the information when a member speaks in Parliament.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that, when we speak, people do not put on their earpiece and therefore cannot see the other side of the coin.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the former leader of the Bloc Québécois likes to point out, unfortunately, Canada is all about French and simultaneous translation. It is such a shame to see that many people, especially those I was talking about in my remarks, did not listen to me, and if they did listen, they probably did not understand what I was trying to say.

It is a shame because it was an opportunity for them to learn more about environmental economics, about their carbon tax, and maybe even understand that although it does not apply in Quebec, even if it did, it would not be the end of the world.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the concurrence motion about the audit in the public accounts committee report tabled by our Auditor General in relation to the greening government strategy.

The greening government strategy is something that, unfortunately, at committee we spent not all that much time on, and I am quite surprised today to see the Conservatives' move to speak an awful lot about it. I think it is indicative of their actions in this place. Nonetheless, I am happy to rise to speak to our findings, because it is always a good opportunity for New Democrats, particularly when Conservatives want to speak about the government's record and our country's record on climate change. It is important that we take the lessons of our past to hopefully plot a better future. Today is no exception to that, and I will be speaking about that a bit in my speech. I will speak directly to the report in just a moment so I can highlight for Canadians that in the report, which dealt largely with a strategy by the Treasury Board Secretariat to develop a greening government strategy, part of the strategy was to look at ways the government could better procure items that could reduce greenhouse emissions, as well as reduce its emissions through its systems.

With respect to that, the environment commissioner found two really troubling things. One is that the plan that was audited, the greening government strategy itself, lacked enough detail to suggest to the commissioner that it would be sufficient. The most particular, and probably the biggest, glaring concern I had with the report, as a member of the committee, was the fact that it lacked an approach to deal with key risks and making sure the strategy would achieve its ultimate goal, which is to reach net zero in its operations by 2050. If there is not enough detail to ensure that the government can get to a net-zero strategy by 2050, in addition to not understanding the risks of achieving it while simultaneously investing in these things, it is important for Canadians to have further transparency. I think that is what the Auditor General's office, by way of the environment commissioner, is calling for.

It is important to note that the recommendations that were outlined by the environment commissioner's report spoke specifically to two departments, National Defence and Transport Canada, understandably, as both are very large ministries that procure a lot of things. Also, in our fight against climate change, we understand that cars and carbon-emitting fuels that are high in intensity, like gasoline, which are still available in markets across Canada today, are still high-polluting. It is no different with government-procured fleets that include a variety of vehicles. We heard in testimony from some of the officials at committee about a plan to try to find ways to reduce emissions by way of procurement. Knowing that those are our two largest ministries, it is going to be really important to deal with the greening government strategy in an appropriate way to see tangible outcomes, maybe even by way of providing details on how many vehicles will be replaced in x amount of time with vehicles that emit less carbon, or electric vehicles. That is a tangible recommendation that I think could be included in the greening government strategy, which right now lacks that level of detail, according to the environment commissioner.

It begs the question of how seriously the government, in its totality, is actually taking its fight against the climate crisis. We have seen, for example, the really troubling debate over the last few days and weeks on the Liberals' decision to create a “carve-out” for Atlantic Canada in relation to the carbon tax. New Democrats supported Conservatives in that, not because we disagree with climate change, which is the reason Conservatives did it, but because we understand that, when it comes to our principles with respect to taxation in this country, we must apply those things equally, and we have seen an unequal application of that. The provinces were very loud and clear on that, and we heard those things. We made the reasonable decision to ensure that we could help at a time when the cost of living is so bad. That is why New Democrats fought to put forward a motion today that we thought was reasonable and a good invitation to the Liberals and Conservatives to see whether we could make life more affordable for Canadians while also tackling climate change.

I thought it was a very reasonable plan. It would have had lowered emissions. By making sure that programs like a free heat pump program are easily accessible and free, we would actually find homes reducing their emissions.

Conservatives always comment on how this is a bad solution because it is going to get too cold in Canada and, at the same time, they say that the solution to the climate crisis is “technology”. Those two things cannot necessarily be true if heat pumps are, in fact, the leading technology in this country and one that is improving in quality, affordability and efficiency, in terms of dealing with Canadian climate.

These are true facts of these technologies that are important for Canadians to partake in and important for us to continue to invest in. They reduce our emissions while also reducing Canadians' reliance on extensive high-carbon-emitting fuels. It is a good thing for Canadians.

We wanted to ensure that we could pay for that kind of program, in addition to ensuring that we remove GST from all home heating, including electric heating, which would save all Canadians everywhere and put money right in their pockets.

The last point of that motion was to ensure that we could actually pay for these things. It is important that, in a climate crisis context, we take into consideration the culprits of the crisis, those who have profited off those industries that are high-carbon-emitting.

They have gotten away with it in large part without having to pay their fair share, in relation to the direct impact they have had on our environment, on our lands, on our planet. It is now time that they play an incredible role and an important role in financing, so that we can see the outcomes we want to see across our country and meet our goals, both domestic and abroad, to ensure that we reduce our carbon emissions.

It is the responsible thing to do.

It was unfortunate to see the Liberals and the Conservatives join together to defeat our motion. It is unfortunate but not all that surprising. They are both parties that we have seen continuously dole out billions of dollars to oil and gas without ever having the courage to attempt to roll some of the profits back, in order to help Canadians.

We have seen other governments, for example, do this. In the United Kingdom, we have seen Conservatives bring in a windfall tax on oil and gas there. There is a Conservative government in place there. I was happy to see that they have seen the good reason and logic. They understand that when oil, as a commodity, is at the highest price it has been in a long time, it is not by chance that those oil companies have done that. The market is largely doing that due to its fluctuating nature, to ensure that parts of that windfall could be absorbed by the government in order to stabilize prices, but also to ensure that the government could finance its programs and services.

Our plan looked at using the finances from a windfall tax like that here in Canada to directly finance the solutions that would result in lower emissions, like getting free heat pumps across Canada, a leading technology in both its efficiency and affordability.

This report is evidence, clearly, of the government's lack of courage and also its lack of attention to detail in actually attempting to do the things it says. I do not discredit Canadians for that.

It is okay to be critical of a government, to call them out for important and very obviously credible things that this report highlights, including a lack of detail in a strategy dealing with the greening of the government and not understanding the risks of not achieving that plan.

When dealing with the climate crisis, we have to know those things full well and if we do not, we should endeavour to understand them.

I think that it is incumbent upon us to take this report and the tabling and the recommendations found in it to be our canary in the coal mine, to suggest that our government is not taking climate change seriously. It is time and it is important now to remedy those things with real solutions, to lower our emissions while also tackling the affordability crisis Canadians are facing right now.

We can do that if we work together. I am certain that, with the opportunity that was present earlier today, if we had worked together then, we could have made life different for so many Canadians, for the better.

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

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time.

Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.

The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act (Court Challenges Program), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Court Challenges Program Act

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to debate Bill C-316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, regarding the Court Challenges Program.

You will recall, Madam Speaker, that I actually began this speech on Wednesday, May 3. I am sure that all members have been patiently waiting these last six months to hear the conclusion of my comments on this bill.

I last spoke about the Conservative legacy when it comes to human rights, particularly that of the late, great John George Diefenbaker. He was a one-man court challenges program. Indeed, it was John Diefenbaker who said, at the beginning of the debate on the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960:

Here for the first time this bulwark of freedom will be embodied in a declaration by parliament that is in existence and cannot be violated. Furthermore, if any of these several rights should be violated under legislation now existing in the courts in interpreting the particular laws or statutes which have been passed will hereafter ... be required to interpret those statutes of today in the light of the fact that wherever there is a violation of any of these declarations or freedoms the statute in question is to that extent non-operative and was never intended to be so operative.

The bill at hand, as has been mentioned, would require that the minister's power include that of the Court Challenges Program. In fact, this is already within the powers of the minister. This program has been in existence since 1978, in different forms and fashions.

Furthermore, the provisions for how the minister can fund the Court Challenges Program already exist in the same statute, at section 7.1. It further talks about requiring a report. As members would know, reports are already presented by the Minister of Canadian Heritage; the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages; the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities; the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth; and the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity. They provide annual reports through the departmental results report, departmental plans and departmental evaluation plan.

We must look at the record of the Liberal government when it comes to the rights of Canadians. Let us start with language rights. Members would recall, and I was on the official languages committee at the time, when the Liberal government tried to appoint Madeleine Meilleur as the official languages commissioner. She was a former Liberal cabinet minister who also donated to the Prime Minister's campaign.

I was also on the Canadian heritage committee at a time when it was revealed that the department gave $133,000 to a well-known anti-Semite with a long history of directing hate towards Jewish people. The government did this through an anti-racism action program.

We recently learned that Radio‑Canada used a Paris-based recording studio, rather than a Quebec-based studio, to record a podcast in order to avoid the Quebec accent.

That is indeed shameful. We should be proud of the language of Quebec and the accent that we hear from our Quebec colleagues across the country. We should be protecting that indeed.

As I wrap up my speech, I wish to say how proud I am as a Conservative to stand on the human rights record that all Conservatives have stood on from the time of John Diefenbaker to the present day. I am very proud of that legacy.