Debates of March 20th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

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

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, March 21, 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.

The Environment

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

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House on the lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

I am speaking today as a follow-up to a question that one might think was stale-dated, but it gives us an opportunity to pursue what was a remarkable success in Montreal at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is nice to be able to recognize the success of anything in this stage of a planet on fire and biodiversity in free fall. I raised this matter at the end of November, before the conference occurred, when I was asking if the Prime Minister would be able to raise the profile of this event and encourage other world leaders to come; that question is definitely stale-dated.

However, the results of what happened at COP15, which is titled the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” after the city in China where this event was supposed to have happened, as well as the global goals for 2050, are worth taking the time to recognize right now. I am grateful that the parliamentary secretary is here for the adjournment discussion.

What did we accomplish? I will say, which I have not had a chance to say in this place, that the hon. Minister of Environment did a great job in negotiating and keeping some diplomatic heavy lifting going. This was a convention discussion where the cards that were dealt on this were not good; they were pretty bad. COP15 was supposed to have happened in September 2020. There were all the delays because of COVID, but the geopolitical cards were not good either.

At basically the last minute, in June 2022, Canada said to the People's Republic of China that clearly it did not have a place to host this right now. Montreal is the host city of the Secretariat for the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, so Canada offered to step up and invite everybody here. When I say “last minute”, six months may sound like a lot of time to people, but we know what it is like if we suddenly decide we are going to invite 30 friends for dinner at four o'clock in the afternoon, and they are due at seven o'clock. In UN terms, that is what we did.

The dynamic here was very challenging in that the People's Republic of China remained the host in the context of being in charge. It was, in UN terms, the president of the COP. This meant that our Minister of Environment was a physical host in Montreal. Again, I give credit to the Minister of Environment; he actually put himself into an interesting position and worked in a very unusual diplomatic, successful partnership with the minister of environment for the People's Republic of China.

What did we accomplish there? The goals are many and they are detailed. Today, I want to speak to today the 23 detailed targets. However, I am afraid that what we are going to see is the typical response out of Environment Canada: Here we go, our targets are 25% by 2025 and 30% by 2030. Then it becomes a job of drawing lines on a map. The targets are not about lines on the map, which might even do a disservice to the targets of slashing pesticide use, reducing food waste and recognizing mother earth and indigenous sovereignty. These goals require far more transformational changes than lines on a map, where if an area is outside that line, it will be decimated. We need to focus and plan.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and hon. colleague for her compliments on the success of COP15, and I will certainly pass those on to the minister. This was a success for Canada and, indeed, the world. I think the hon. member will agree that the hard work begins now in implementing that framework.

As was correctly noted, China retained the presidency of COP15, while Canada provided the host location. Canada stepped up as the host location, doing in five months what normally takes two years to do, and sent a strong signal that we understand the urgency of mobilizing the world on this issue.

China, with the COP15 presidency, was responsible for working with the United Nations secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity to issue invitations to the high-level segment. This was a UN conference, as the hon. member referenced. It was Canada's conference, in terms of home field, and formally it was China that invited heads of state and governments to COP15 at its discretion. As a United Nations meeting, COP15 was open to all UN member states. All parties were formally invited to choose their representatives following an official notification from the CBD secretariat.

As the hon. member will know, the Prime Minister delivered remarks at the opening ceremony of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, COP15, and he highlighted the importance of protecting nature and biodiversity. He was engaged with key stakeholders. His participation on the ground sent a strong message that Canada is engaged and is leading by example in order to push for a clear, ambitious and transformative post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

The high-level segment, which was always planned as a ministerial event, engaged ministers to help conclude negotiations and secure an ambitious outcome, and that is exactly what happened. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change served as the head of the Canadian delegation and had a very active role in the negotiations and at COP15 generally. In addition, several other cabinet ministers attended COP15 throughout the two weeks of negotiations, lending a strong message of Canadian political engagement and leadership.

To wrap up, I will highlight that the Prime Minister was active at COP15 and that Canada's expectations for an ambitious outcome were indeed realized at this landmark event. We are confident there is now clear recognition that nature is as important as climate and that the two crises must be tackled together.

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

Madam Speaker, a lot was accomplished, as I said in my moment, but what I really want to focus on now is what is next. The question will remain: How do we recognize this language? The targets from Kunming-Montreal are truly transformative. This is the first UN document that has referenced mother earth; our relationship as humanity with mother earth; the leadership of indigenous peoples around the world; and the indigenization of our cultural approach, which has forever been, at least in industrialized modern society, exploitative, extractive and violent.

This is a call for a transformation of our values, a change in our industrial systems and a requirement that we do more in how we conduct agriculture, aquaculture and forestry and that we change our ways while we still have time.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, once again, I find myself in violent agreement with the hon. member, which is often unusual in the chamber.

I will just re-emphasize that the Government of Canada signalled commitment and resolve in the lead-up to COP15 through a series of statements and announcements centred around our progress toward conserving 30% of our land and waters by 2030, the protection and recovery of species at risk and partnerships with indigenous peoples and provincial and territorial governments.

At the international level, leaders from Canada and many other countries underlined the importance of COP15 and the post-2020 global biodiversity framework in recent months, including at G7, G20 and the UN General Assembly.

Housing

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, on November 22, 2022, I asked the Liberal government if it would finally stop treating housing like a stock market and ensure every Canadian has access to safe, affordable and adequate housing as a basic human right. The Liberals talk a good game when it comes to solving the housing crisis, but they have failed to act. Costs remain out of control and the homelessness crisis continues to worsen as wealthy financial landlords line their pockets.

In Vancouver, the average one-bedroom apartment now costs $2,640 per month. The CBC recently reported that one needs to earn $109,000 a year in Vancouver to afford a one-bedroom rental unit. This is simply outrageous. However, it is not just people in big cities feeling the squeeze. Vacancy rates are dropping to all-time lows across the country. For example, in Prince Edward Island, the vacancy rate for bachelor apartments has fallen to zero. As more Canadians are struggling to find a place they can call home, the Liberal government is expecting Canadians to accept less when it must be doing more to tackle the crisis.

We desperately need more affordable housing, but the national housing strategy is missing the mark. The Auditor General's report released in November revealed that programs such as the national co-investment fund are failing to deliver affordable housing. I have heard from housing providers, community non-profit organizations and advocates that this flawed program desperately needs to be fixed.

The Auditor General's report revealed that the government spent billions developing unaffordable housing. The co-investment used an affordability measure tied to 80% of average market rent, resulting in housing that is unaffordable for many Canadians. Meanwhile, 115,000 units have received funding commitments through the fund, yet no money has flowed to the non-profits for this program. CMHC says the funding cannot be given to the non-profits until construction begins. This is yet another bureaucratic barrier for the non-profits trying to deliver affordable housing.

As projects sit on the shelf collecting dust, recent changes to the co-investment fund implemented by the government are jeopardizing affordable housing projects. Rising construction costs due to inflation and higher interest rates are adding to the financial burden of the non-profits. Rather than helping the non-profits in these challenging times, the government has reduced the funding available through the co-investment fund by implementing a $25,000–per–unit cap on nonrepayable grant dollars. Prior to this change, organizations were eligible for up to 40% of total project costs. This is a huge cut for the non-profits, which will now need to find money elsewhere or, worse, abandon projects.

People say that projects go to CMHC to die. Sadly, the government is only proving this point. Community organizations are being told the fund has been depleted and will now have nowhere to turn for money. Non-profits intending to rely on the program were informed of the changes at the last minute, leaving them with gaps in funding and putting their projects at risk. It is unacceptable.

The upcoming federal budget next week is an opportunity for the government to provide real investments into affordable housing and finally tackle the housing crisis. The government should do away with the $25,000 limitation. It should not let these projects die that are desperately needed in our community. It should not let the efforts of the non-profits, which have been working so hard to provide housing, fail.

The ball is in the government's court.

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

Madam Speaker, the question by my colleague from Vancouver East shows that we share a concern that people across this country still face challenges when it comes to housing affordability and homelessness.

Our government always welcomes input from across the way, across the housing sector and across the country on how to solve this complex problem. I would say it can only be solved through deep collaboration, and that is the approach we are taking. Our $82-billion national housing strategy, the first of its kind in Canadian history, is built around partnership. We are not talking a good game. This is real action, and even more fundamentally, it is built on a rights-based approach to housing and an acknowledgement that everyone in Canada deserves a suitable home they can afford.

With this in mind, it prioritizes people made most vulnerable to housing need, and it is yielding real results. For example, the rapid housing initiative, one of the strategy's programs, specifically targets those most in need through the rapid creation of housing units. More than 2,500 homes for people experiencing homelessness or at risk of it have been built or are being built with funds from this initiative. These are 2,500 homes for people who need them when they need them most, and many of them are being built in my home community of Winnipeg.

People like those who will stay in the new 20-unit building operated by Lookout Housing and Health Society in my colleague's riding of Vancouver East are benefiting. This is being built now with funding from the rapid housing initiative. Then there is the 24-unit facility, also in my colleague's riding, operated by Lu'ma Native Housing Society, which is providing supportive housing for indigenous residents. These are just a couple of examples from one program. They are repeated across the country and across the range of programs being delivered under the strategy.

These are concrete results we are proud of, and they serve to reveal the size of the problem and the fact that we still need to do more, as the hon. member has suggested. We are doing more. Our current budget includes a combination of new ideas and expansions of past successes, all supported by significant investments. We are approaching the issue of housing affordability from every angle that will have an impact, and in collaborating with partners across the housing system, we are finding new angles every day.

I thank my colleague for continuing to share our concern for housing affordability in this country.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association is calling for an additional $4 billion per year over two years in the national housing co-investment fund. The funds must be used to build truly affordable housing, targeting core need, with rents no more than 30% of total income. The government must inject additional dollars into the program and lift the arbitrary $25,000-per-unit cap on grants. We cannot afford to keep letting projects die at CMHC. The government needs to fix the co-investment fund and finally get to work on tackling this crisis.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned projects in my riding. Yes, a few projects did get through and I am glad for that, but I invite the parliamentary secretary to visit my riding to see the homeless encampments in the community and the number of people who are homeless and unhoused in the community. Those units are good but deficient, and more needs to be done; there is no question.

The government needs to fix the co-investment fund and get the funding in place for people who need a place to call home.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, our government has prioritized housing affordability throughout our mandate. It is why we launched the historic national housing strategy and why, in subsequent legislation, we enshrined housing as a human right. We continue to make housing a priority. We have enacted programs to help people from across the spectrum of housing need, always prioritizing those who are most vulnerable.

I would be very happy to visit the hon. member's riding. I have been to Vancouver East before, and I know there is great housing need there. We need to work together on all sides of the House to address that need.

Climate Change

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to come back to the question I asked, after I returned from the most recent UN climate negotiations, on the fact that a credible climate plan must include plans to phase out oil and gas while supporting affected workers.

Today feels particularly appropriate to do so, given that international climate scientists have shared their most recent report, one that speaks to this being our last chance before the climate crisis becomes irreversible, and this being their last report before the goal to limit warming to 1.5°C is out of reach.

Here is the crux of it for Canada: If we want even a 50% chance of staying under 1.5°C in global average temperature rise, and if we were to do our fair share, then 86% of Canada’s proven fossil fuel reserves need to remain unextracted.

It is a tall challenge, particularly for a country that has chosen to be so dependent on oil, but we can and should rise to it.

While the federal government is not turning a blind eye to this crisis, as carbon pricing is an example of an important measure that it has moved ahead with, in the words of Bill McKibben on climate, “Winning slowly is the same as losing”.

For every positive measure, like putting a price on pollution, the government also continues to placate the oil and gas industry as if the science did not apply to it. It has been busy approving oil exploration permits off the coast of Newfoundland, looking for more oil, when we know that we need to leave the majority of our proven reserves untouched if we want a shot at rising to this crisis.

The government also brags about billions of dollars of investment in climate action, and we will no doubt hear this in the parliamentary secretary’s remarks tonight, I expect, but so much of this so-called investment is in fact more subsidies to the very sector most responsible for the crisis, for example, in the form of a tax credit for a failed climate solution, so-called carbon capture and storage.

In my original question, I asked if this government was going to continue to hide behind the greed of the oil and gas industry. In the months since, it has only gotten worse.

While it continues to push the federal government to give them billions, and last year’s budget, for example, set aside $8.6 billion of our money for the fairy tale known as carbon capture, the oil and gas industry continues to rake in record profits. The sixth-largest oil and gas company operating in Canada booked pure profit of more than $35 billion dollars last year. These are the same companies that lied to us for decades about the climate crisis they helped cause.

In recent weeks, these companies have been telling Canadians and their MPs that they need more of our money to increase the carbon capture tax credit, money that could be invested in workers’ livelihoods. If we are going to be honest, we do not need more of that.

What we need is a federal government willing to be clear with Canadians about this crisis and the urgent action required to address it. We could unite Canadians around this, investing in workers’ livelihoods, in deeply affordable public transit and high-speed rail, in a zero-emissions electricity grid and in deep energy retrofits of buildings across the country, which would create well-paid, high-skill jobs and would return to public coffers $2 to $5 for every dollar spent.

My question for the parliamentary secretary, who I appreciate is here with us this evening, is this: Will she advocate in her caucus for these transformational investments, in place of more subsidies to the oil and gas industry, while the window of opportunity is still open?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I agree fully that climate change is a matter of tremendous urgency right now. That is why, in fact, we are taking action. I really liked hearing some of the ideas that the member opposite had because we are working on many of those. I will talk a little about that.

The member opposite mentioned the price on carbon pollution as one of the actions we have taken, and I do not think that we should actually undermine how important that is as a fundamental piece to action on climate change. It is a market-based solution, and it is effective. I see it in the decisions being made by industry, when I speak with people and they say that they look at the price on carbon pollution and they are deciding to change the way they heat their buildings or use energy in their districts, for example, in the university in my community. It is having a very real and tangible impact.

The other thing we did is legislating that we would be net-zero by 2050. To go along with that, we put out an emissions reduction plan that covers all sectors of our economy as to how we are going to reduce emissions. This includes working toward the green building strategy and reducing emissions from transportation. In fact, the member opposite mentioned public transit as being important. I am very happy that, with federal support, my city has the largest number of electric buses in all of North America.

Those are the types of things we are working on and supporting. It is about moving away from combustion and doing so quickly. That is our goal. We are working on that, as I have mentioned, looking across sectors of our economy.

Not only that, but we are also investing in clean energy. It is important that we have a clean electrical grid to support all these different forms that I am talking about. When we are talking about that, Canada already has one of the cleanest electrical grids in the world. We are really quite proud of it. It is an 84% clean electrical grid. That is something to be proud of. This also attracts investments to our country.

Let us talk for a second about that. We know that we need to get the other 16%, and that is something we are investing in. We are working with our provinces and territories to make sure that we do have that clean electrical grid to support a clean economy as we go forward.

I will also talk quickly about investments that are coming to our country because of the fact that we have a clean electric grid. When people look at our country, they see that we are making that commitment to have a net-zero economy.

One of the most recent ones that is very exciting is that Volkswagen decided to open a plant for battery cells here in Canada, the first one outside of Europe. It is being built here. That builds on other investments, such as Stellantis and LG, which are building a battery plant here in Canada. Once again, they are doing this to support the North American market.

Those are signals from around the world that people are looking at what we are doing here in Canada, seeing the investments we are making towards a clean economy and saying that this is where they want to build their parts for a clean energy transition. Not only that, but it is also creating well-paying jobs right here in our country. Those are the jobs that we are attracting and that we should be very proud of.

There are many parts to what we are talking about today. It is an urgent crisis, and we absolutely must take action. I also want to say that we are moving mountains in a lot of what we are doing, be it in reducing emissions from forums across all sectors or building a clean economy for the future with well-paying jobs.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not dispute for a second some of the investments that the federal government is making.

However, the reality is that by giving the oil and gas industry, for example, upwards of $20 billion a year, those investments work at cross-purposes with what the parliamentary secretary just spoke about. They feed the lines of the opposition when they attack the carbon price. More importantly, the investments are insufficient to respond to the climate crisis in the closing window of opportunity we have.

Again, will the parliamentary secretary stand up to end the subsidies to oil and gas? If we want a truly renewable grid, according to the Green Budget Coalition, it would take about $17 billion to do it, which is less than we currently give the oil and gas industry every single year.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have unequivocally stated that we will end fossil fuel subsidies. We are working on that, as the member knows.

Beyond that, we need to focus not only on investments being made but also on legislated targets, like a sales target that we have put in place to have zero-emission vehicles by 2035, for all new vehicles sold. We are taking positive actions moving forward.

I would hope that the member opposite also focuses on that.

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

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:45 p.m.)