Laurel Collins

[Petitions, December 4th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, is Canada's main law designed to prevent pollution and regulate toxic substances in order to protect the environment and human health, but CEPA is out of date and badly in need of reform. This is why I am pleased to be presenting this petition, which garnered over 8,000 signatures.

In particular, I want to recognize two incredible young advocates, Franny and Rupert, from my riding of Victoria. They started their environmental advocacy at seven and 10 years old and have not stopped pushing for environmental justice. They created this e-petition urging the federal government to update CEPA, including amendments to recognize environmental rights in Canada, in particular the right to a healthy environment.

In 2017, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development reviewed CEPA and made 87 recommendations, but so far the government has failed to act. Therefore, I want to thank Rupert and Franny, organizations like the David Suzuki Foundation and the thousands of Canadians who have been pushing the government to do the right thing, which is to update the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and enshrine the right to a healthy environment in law.

[The Environment, December 2nd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for being here tonight, but I cannot thank him for answering my questions, because he did not really answer them.

He used examples for back-loading some of the climate action when it comes to zero-emission vehicles. We are not on track to meet our targets for selling zero-emission vehicles. Transport Canada has said we are not even halfway there, and in five years we will not even be a quarter of the way there.

Why is the government afraid to put in accountability? Why is it not showing us where it will be in 2025? Why are there not stronger accountability mechanisms?

[The Environment, December 2nd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, climate accountability is vital if we want to reduce our emissions. We have missed every single climate target that we have set, so it is hard to understand and wrap my head around why the government would put forward a climate accountability bill that avoids any real accountability for a decade. It puts off accountability for the most important 10 years. This huge omission of a 2025 milestone target is baffling.

The world's top scientists are telling us that the next decade, this decade that we are living in, is the most critical. The next 10 years are the ones that the IPCC reports say are crucial if we want to have any hope of avoiding the most severe impacts of climate change, so it is really difficult for me to understand how Liberal members of Parliament can stand behind this bill, how they can look young people in the eyes and tell them they have to wait for another decade.

However, it is not just young people who are worried about the climate crisis. Canadians are already seeing the impacts. This past summer in B.C., people of all ages were choking on the smoke from the climate fires down south. Grandparents are worried about the world that we are leaving to the next generations. Communities across Canada are already experiencing the billions of dollars of climate costs associated with adapting to climate change. Local governments are spending $5.3 billion a year right now and in the coming decades that number is expected to grow exponentially.

The Liberals said they would provide milestone targets every five years, so why is there no 2025 milestone target? Why put off accountability for 10 years? Why continue the trend of kicking the can down the road when it comes to addressing the climate crisis?

Even with a 2025 milestone target we need stronger accountability mechanisms than the bill would provide, both with the arm's-length advisory body and with the environment commissioner. Neither of these bodies have the capacity or the mandate in this bill to adequately hold the government to account. In this bill, the minister is mainly accountable to himself. If we want to fix these issues and if we want to strengthen the bill, we need to clearly define the advisory body's role.

We have to guarantee that body would be comprised of independent experts. These fixes would strengthen the advisory body, but we also need to ensure that the environment commissioner is reporting on whether our targets are in line with the best available science, whether our climate plan will actually get us to our targets, whether our progress report and our assessment report are accurate, and whether the proposed corrective actions are adequate to address the times when we get off track. It cannot be the party in power being accountable to itself.

The environment commissioner could play an important role in the legislation, but we learned recently that the environment commissioner has not had the resources to do the current regular environmental work. We not only need to give the environment commissioner adequate funding, but we need to ensure that this never happens again. I am curious whether the government will agree to make the environment commissioner an independent officer of Parliament.

There are a number of other gaps. I am curious why the government is not using the language of carbon budgets and a framework of carbon budgeting instead of milestone targets. Why are we not requiring the minister to meet strong standards when setting targets, when—

[Small Business, November 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the government must support small businesses that are falling through the cracks.

The owners of Bear and Joey, a new restaurant in my riding, are facing the exact same challenges as other small business owners, but they had the bad luck of opening during a global pandemic. After years of planning and pouring their life savings into developing their business, they do not qualify for wage or rent subsidies.

When will the government give start-ups and all small businesses the help they need to survive, and stop leaving businesses like Bear and Joey to face this pandemic on their own.

[Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, November 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it seems from the member's words that he cares deeply about addressing the climate crisis, so it is confusing to me that he would stand behind a bill that puts off accountability for 10 years.

What is also confusing is that the member said this is not a climate action plan. Where is the government's climate action plan? This bill gives the government an additional nine months after royal assent to create that plan, yet in its throne speech it said it would table a climate action plan to exceed 2030 targets immediately.

In what definition of “immediately” does it take a year to get this kind of action plan? How does the member stand behind the Liberal government and its inaction?

[Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, November 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the “tragedy of the horizon” and said that we needed climate action now. That is ironic, given the bill would not only put off climate accountability for the next decade, but it would also put off actually creating a climate plan for six months and would give another three-month window. That is after royal assent. It would probably be up to a year before we would see a climate plan.

How does the member justify using quotes about the “tragedy of the horizon” when this is exactly what the bill is?

[Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, November 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that the Conservatives have a climate plan, but in 2019, when they received grades on their election platform and climate policies, they got a D in emissions reductions.

This bill, which I hear the Conservatives are planning to support at least being sent to committee, does not have adequate accountability measures built in. I am wondering if the member agrees that we need to strengthen the advisory body, but also make the environment commissioner independent so that the Liberal government and future governments are actually going to be accountable to Canadians.

[Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, November 26th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way mentioned that the last question was not fair. I am curious if he thinks it is fair to Canadians to put off climate accountability for 10 years.

The Liberals are saying they are putting in five-year milestones, but for some reason they left out 2025. The world's top scientists are saying the next decade is the most important if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change, so why are the Liberals leaving out the most important years?

[Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, November 26th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the member and his Conservative colleagues have said they are worried about how much getting to net zero will cost, but the costs of meeting our targets and stopping dangerous climate change are so much lower than the costs of missing these targets. In fact, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has projected that by 2050 and in the years leading up to 2050, it will cost between $21 billion and $43 billion a year. Wildfires, flooding and extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and intensity, and people are worried about their kids and their future but also about the present impacts of climate change.

Does the member agree that the climate crisis poses a serious threat to our environment, our health and our economy?

[Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, November 25th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I am curious if the member across the way does not consider that workers who are in the fossil fuel industry can represent that industry. Is he saying that only executives or officials from the company themselves can—