The post (Français) SPEECH IN COMMITTEE: Elizabeth May Questions Minster of Immigration on Systemic Problems and Delays appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post SPEECH IN COMMITTEE: Elizabeth May Speaks About Amendments to Bill C-15. appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On Friday, Bill C-226 passed clause-by-clause, a major step in getting the legislation passed.

For more information on the bill, click here.

The post Bill C-226 passes clause-by-clause in Environment Committee appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post Getting to net zero emissions by 2050 does not ensure we will keep to 1.5 degrees C appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to Dan for this unexpected opportunity. Thank you very much.
And to the minister, thank you for being before committee, and thank you for your personal commitment to climate action. It’s evident and you know you have my deepest respect in knowing that you care and that when you say “we cannot afford to wait”, I think I firmly believe you mean it, which is why I’m very disappointed with this legislation.
My first question is why in developing this legislation it seems apparent that Environment Canada and Climate Change chose not to decide to study the climate accountability acts of other countries, the U.K., New Zealand,
Denmark, and to do better than what they recommend. And in three places I note the differences between those legislation that we don’t start right away with a five year target with five years when the legislation started, the milestone year, we don’t include carbon budget, we don’t rely on an expert committee of expertise that reports to the whole parliament and actually sets those carbon budgets for the government.
There must have been a decision not to look at the gold standard of climate accountability elsewhere in the world, and I wonder why not.

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson: Thank you for the series of questions, and certainly thank you for your ongoing
commitment to the climate issue which I know is very deeply felt.
We did certainly look at all of the other relevant acts around the world. We came to conclusions that we were going to
develop something that we felt fit best within the Canadian context.
As you will know, we have established an expert panel. The expert panel is one piece of this. The role for the
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is another piece. In some other jurisdictions, those
roles are fused, but in this case, the commissioner does the review and effectively the auditing of that function. The
expert panel is appointed to provide advice to the government which is public, it must be responded to by the minister
every year, so that piece of it is, we think, the gold standard in terms of how we actually are moving forward.
With respect to other elements of the bill, certainly as I say, we look very closely at those. We believe that actually
setting five year rolling targets that essentially embed in them emissions relating to sectors is the right way to go in
Canada, a federal system. We believe that it is essentially similar in terms of outcomes as to what you get from carbon
budgets. And there are many other countries including Denmark and Scotland and others that have gone the same
direction that Canada has.
Ms. Elizabeth May: With all due respect, Mr. Minister, the bill refers to an advisory committee, not an expert
committee. You’ve only got one climate scientist on the current—I do think it was disrespectful to this committee and
the parliamentary process to jump the gun and appoint an advisory committee before the bill had had even a single
witness to talk about why so many people and experts believe this should model ourselves much more on the U.K.
climate committee, which is universally respected for its expertise. You’ve got one climate scientist on your advisory
body and Professor [Inaudible] has been clear that Canada’s climate target for 2030 should be, if we’re going to pull our
fair share, somewhere between 96%-99% reductions below the emissions today, but he’ll be surrounded by other
stakeholders who have other views.
I wonder if you will reconsider the composition of this, and [Inaudible] of the people on it, the structure of it to be
much more like a U.K. expert body that sets carbon budgets?
̧ (1440)
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson: Thank you for the comment.
I would say to be honest, I’m a little bit surprised at the comment because certainly the focus for us is actually on
getting the expert panel working because the issue is so important and so timely. That is one of the reasons why we did
move forward with it.
I would say that achieving net zero is going to require the support and engagement from all parts of society, that includes provinces and territories, it includes indigenous peoples and youth and civil society and a range of sectors
within the private sector.
We have launched an independent net zero advisory body that is filled with exceptional Canadians that bridge a wide range of experiences and expertise including sector expertise that will enable us to make the kind of progress that we need to make going forward. I can certainly go through the bios of the people who are on that committee. They are an exceptional group of folks that bring together a range of prospectus from across the [Inaudible] to ensure that the government is getting the best advice with respect to pathways to achieve net zero.

The post Bill C-12 can, and must, be stronger if we are to hold to 1.5 C appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-06-17 13:57

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We know what the COVID-19 emergency response from government looks like. One year ago today, on June 17, 2019, the House voted that we were in a climate emergency. When can we expect to see the government take the climate emergency similarly and seriously?

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (North Vancouver)
2020-06-17 13:57

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the honourable member for her question.

Climate change remains a high priority for this government. It is a crisis. It is something that we as Canadians need to address, as does the broader international community. We made a commitment to move forward to address and exceed the target that we had established previously. We made a commitment to achieving net-zero by 2050. We are fully committed to ensuring that we move forward in a manner that will allow us to achieve both.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-06-17 13:58

With all due respect, we know what the government looks like when it’s taking an emergency seriously. It listens to the science and it applies the programs that science requires. In this case, the climate emergency, the scientific advice came in the IPCC report from October 8, 2018, that the window on 1.5°C, the Paris target, was closing. The current target put in place by Stephen Harper is five years old and is about half of what needs to be done.

If this government treated COVID-19 the way they treat climate, we would have told Theresa Tam, “We can’t stay six feet apart. You’ll have to be happy with three feet.”
Again to the minister, when will we see a target consistent with the science?

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (North Vancouver)
2020-06-17 13:59

Certainly, climate change is a science issue. It’s not a political issue. It should not be a partisan issue. We are guided by the science in everything that we are doing. We developed the pan-Canadian framework, which has 50 different initiatives to allow us to reduce emissions. We said that we know we need to go further, and we are in the process of developing an updated plan that will ensure that we do that. We will be standing up a panel to consult the Canadian public on a pathway to net-zero by 2050, and are working actively every day to ensure that we do that.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-06-17 13:59

When will we see the requirement under the Paris Agreement for a new target tabled by Canada within calendar 2020?

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (North Vancouver)
2020-06-17 13:59

Madam Chair, we have been very clear that we would be updating our target in advance of the next COP. That has not changed. We will be doing that. I look forward to being able to bring that forward and discuss it with all Canadians.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-06-17 14:00

To the honourable minister, I don’t know. It’s very difficult because clearly there are well-intentioned ministers and well-intentioned people.

Do you know the difference between 417 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere with a well-intentioned minister and 417 parts per million with a disinterested or hostile minister? The answer is that there’s no difference at all.

We are in a worsening climate emergency. I need to hear clearly from the minister, and I hope I will this time. Will we comply with the Paris Agreement and come up with a new target within calendar 2020?

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (North Vancouver)
2020-06-17 14:00

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This government has been very clear. We are fully committed to addressing the climate crisis. It is an enormous priority for us. We have put a plan in place. We have worked very hard to develop an additional number of initiatives that will go forward with respect to a new plan and a new target, supplementing the work that was done by the previous Minister of Environment and Climate Change. We all feel extremely strongly about this in the House. Certainly it’s the reason I got into politics in the first place. It’s something that I’ve spent many years of my life working on, and it’s something to which I personally, and the government as a whole, are firmly committed.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-06-17 14:01

I appreciate the good words, Madam Chair. I’ve heard them before. What I have not heard is the firm commitment to at least double our target within calendar 2020 to comply with our goal of holding to 1.5°C. It’s a critical goal and the window is closing.

In COVID-19 this government has acted with resolve. It’s been an astonishing whole-of-government approach. When will we see a similar level of commitment from this government to address the climate emergency?

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (North Vancouver)
2020-06-17 14:02

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think the honourable member should be aware that, even in the context of a very challenging circumstance with respect to COVID-19, this government has moved forward with key elements of its climate plan, including the pricing on pollution, including ensuring liquidity for large corporations was put in the context of commitments to climate change. This government has been very clear this is an enormous priority. It’s a priority guided by science. It’s a priority we are working on not just domestically but internationally, and it is something we will continue to work on because we must.

The post When will the government take the climate emergency as seriously as COVID-19? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-06-10 13:58

The approach is so very flawed, Madam Chair, in that it attempts to punish people as opposed to encouraging them. I think the Liberals have been overly influenced by the Conservative Party’s cries that there’s vast fraud, that Canadians are cheating. The reality is that if you want to create an incentive to go back to work, you don’t threaten people. What you do is create a sliding scale. You let people continue to receive CERB, but maybe less as they begin to earn more, so that you have a transition on a sliding scale to go into the wage subsidy or into CERB.

I ask the honourable minister this: How can it be considered fair to say that someone isn’t eligible, even though they believed they were? The language in this bill, particularly at proposed paragraph 12.1(1)(e) in the penalties section, is an unreasonable determination that someone has violated the act and is subject to jail time and heavy fines.

Hon. Carla Qualtrough (Delta)
2020-06-10 13:58

Madam Chair, because of parliamentary privilege, I can’t and won’t speak to specific acts of a piece of law that hasn’t actually been introduced in the House, but I’ll tell you that what we’re trying to do is enhance our integrity measures. We’re working with those people who made an honest mistake, those who took advantage of returning to work when they were still receiving the CERB. We’re working with those people. We’re absolutely confident that those people will find a path forward.

We want to deal with intentional fraudsters, people who are criminally taking advantage of seniors. Members of this House have brought fact patterns to my attention and have said, “Please deal with these.” This is exactly what we’re trying to deal with, Madam Chair.

The post Canadians should not be punished for staying on the CERB appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-06-10 13:56

Much worse than part 3, from our point of view, is the treatment of people who are at this point potentially to be jailed for refusing to return to work when it’s considered reasonable and they are recipients of CERB. I wonder about the reasonableness here. It’s a subjective test. This is a wrong-headed approach to go after people and threaten them. The retroactive section has already made the Canadian Civil Liberties Association question its constitutionality.

To the minister, what’s reasonable, and in whose eyes is it reasonable? In today’s news, Hamilton’s chief medical officer says there is a spike in cases among young people, who likely were exposed while taking public transit to get to work. Their commute wasn’t safe. Who determines reasonableness in deciding it’s not safe to go back to work?

Hon. Carla Qualtrough (Delta)
2020-06-10 13:57

Madam Chair, as with the current CERB, moving forward it tries to encompass the situations of people who are unemployed, people who can’t work because of child care responsibilities, people who are ill or sick. Moving to a broad term of “reasonableness” allows us to look at the individual circumstances of the person. If we stuck to language like “suitable” or “appropriate”, that would qualify the job. We’re trying to look at the person and their particular circumstances as we work to ensure that if someone is immunocompromised and can’t take transit to their job, then it’s reasonable for them not to take that job. That’s the exact example we’re trying to encompass with broad “reasonableness” criteria.

The post Who determines whether it is reasonable to return to work? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-06-10 13:54

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to put it on the record, because we may or may not be debating it, the draft embargoed bill that we’ve seen is unacceptable to members of the Green Party caucus. My questions will relate largely to those sections that are troublesome.

I’ll start with a question to the honourable minister for disabilities.

I certainly appreciate her work and I know her intentions are the best, but part 3 of this bill allows for the information to be shared so people can get a one-time payment of $600, which is not enough to really deal with the COVID crisis for people with disabilities. It’s clear—and I thank the honourable leader of the New Democratic Party for making this point clearly in question period—it will reach approximately 40% of people with disabilities because of the structure of going through the disability tax credit.

To the honourable minister, are other measures under consideration to reach the rest of the people in Canada with disabilities who need help?

Hon. Carla Qualtrough (Delta)
2020-06-10 13:55

Madam Chair, the disability support payment we are proposing and that we hope to get through the House today complements a whole suite of measures our government has put in place that people with disabilities have access to.

We know that people with disabilities who were precariously employed are now taking advantage of the CERB. Students with disabilities get the student benefit, including a $750-per-month top-up for four months. Families with children with disabilities are getting the CCB payment. Disproportionately, people with disabilities are benefiting from the GST payment. I should talk about the provincial letters that are being delivered to recipients of provincial disability supports.

All around, Madam Chair, we’re trying to get to every citizen with a disability, and this measure fills an important gap.

The post Federal benefits will reach 40% of people with disabilities. What about the other 60%? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-05-27 13:52

My next question will be for Minister Blair, but as an aside, I will say that last answer completely fails to meet the legal requirements of the Paris Agreement to file a new target this year.
To save some time, Minister Blair, let’s pretend to go back to the questions from my colleague MP Paul-Hus and to your last answer. This is dealt with on a case-by-case basis by CBSA agents. There are thousands of them. They are exercising personal, subjective judgment. This is not acceptable.

I’m begging the minister. Could the minister please put out a directive, advice to every CBSA agent on the ground, that when a non-status entry point sees a non-status direct relative—husband, wife, child of a Canadian citizen—that relative be deemed to be entering Canada for an essential purpose?

Lib. (ON)
Hon. Bill Blair (Scarborough Southwest)
2020-05-27 13:53

I’d like to thank the member for bringing this issue forward again. It’s an important one.

We have been working very hard to ensure that we do everything possible to keep families together. At the same time, we’ve been working with the provinces and territories, listening to the concerns of Canadians about ensuring that travel across our international border, particularly with the United States, is limited to essential travel. As I’ve indicated, I’ve had a number of important conversations and necessary conversations with our provincial and territorial partners. I believe there is a consensus on the right way forward on this, and we’re working very diligently to put it in place. I want to assure the member opposite that we have given very clear direction to our CBSA officers. I believe our border services officers have been doing an extraordinary job for us in the exercise of their discretion. At the same time, they have been doing the important work of ensuring the health and safety of Canadians at our border.

The post Family reunification should be accepted as essential travel appeared first on Elizabeth May.