Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-12-03 19:22 [p.2955]

Madam Speaker, in Adjournment Proceedings this evening, I am pursuing a question for which I did not receive an adequate answer on November 20.

I asked about the new legislation before us, Bill C-12, which proclaims itself as a net-zero climate accountability act. It fails on almost every point. The Green caucus is struggling with how to handle it. We want so very much to support climate accountability, but we struggle with whether we can even vote for this legislation at second reading to send it to committee.

Here is what the legislation must do as the bottom line requirement to be called accountability on net zero for climate action: We have to get the science right, we have to get the process right and we have to get the accountability right. Right now, it has three strikes and this legislation is out.

Getting the science right means that in the preamble, one does not cite one aspect of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change science, that to hold to 1.5°C we must have net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, all the while ignoring the closer-term reality of the emergency and the urgency. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also says that to have any hope of holding to 1.5°C, we need massive reductions in greenhouse gases in the next decade.

It is not an even pace of having three decades so we take our time and do it in even bits every 10 years. No, we cannot do that. Most of the heavy lifting has to be done before 2030. That is not clear in the legislation. As a matter of fact, it is denied by the way the legislation is structured with a first milestone year in 2030.

Next is getting the process right. I am honestly baffled that the Liberal government appears to have ignored the experience garnered in other countries with climate accountability legislation. The U.K. has had its legislation since 2008. There are lessons to be learned there. Similarly, New Zealand, which brought in its legislation, learned from the U.K.’s experience, as did Denmark. All of the climate accountability legislation in countries where it is working have relied on expert advice. To the extent they have an advisory group, they are experts.

This legislation wants to have an advisory body that seems to be another version of a multistakeholder group without expertise. That is a very significant error. I like multistakeholder groups. I used to be vice-chair of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which was destroyed and repealed. It was originally put in place by the Mulroney government, by the way, and it was repealed under Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012. We should bring a national round table or something like that back, but not through the backdoor of Bill C-12, where we need expertise, not multistakeholder advice.

The third area of accountability that fails is having the mechanisms to hold the government to account and getting them right. This bill does not use mandatory language around the minister meeting a target. It is interesting. I have been conferring with colleagues in New Zealand and they are looking at saying, if the target is missed, that means the government will have to make up what it missed by buying credits and paying for them. Their finance department is getting ready to book the costs of missing the target. Therefore, there is a financial penalty and the government will then be keeping its eye on the ball to avoid that penalty.

The bottom line here is that the Paris Agreement now has the support of the United States, President-elect Joe Biden has appointed a high-level special envoy in John Kerry. Canada should be jumping up right now to be bold and ambitious.

This bill is not what we need. I hope we can see changes before it comes back at third stage and report stage.

Paul Lefebvre (Sudbury)
2020-12-03 19:26 [p.2955]

Madam Speaker, the immediate priority of the government is to support Canadians through the pandemic. However, we are also planning strategically for how to promote economic prosperity while also addressing the global crisis of climate change.

Canadians are experiencing the impacts of climate change and the government understands the urgent need to take action and ensure that sustainability is built into all aspects of our economy. This is critical for Canadians today and for our future generations.

We are making progress through Canada’s current climate plan, the pan-Canadian framework. This plan is projected to achieve a historic level of emissions reductions, but we know we need to do more. That is why the government has committed to exceeding its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions targets, and putting the country on a path to prosper in a net-zero emissions economy by 2050.

We have also committed to bringing forward a new NDC emission reduction target by 2030, prior to COP26 in November 2021.

To reach these targets, we are strengthening existing measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and introduce new ones. The 2020 fall economic statement announced some of these new measures, and our work to build back better will make the economy greener, more inclusive, more resilient and more competitive.
Investments include putting climate action at the centre of our plan to create a million new jobs; bolstering training support for those hit hardest by the pandemic, including marginalized and racialized women, indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, and new Canadians; and proposing to provide up to 700,000 grants to homeowners to help them make energy efficient improvements to their homes.

We are committed to investing in Canada’s clean power supply and working to connect Canadians with clean electricity across the country. We are investing in zero-emission vehicles, including charging and refuelling infrastructure. The Government of Canada is also working to develop a well-functioning, sustainable finance market in Canada. We are also prioritizing investments in nature-based solutions, including plans to plant two billion trees over 10 years.
We are investing in climate-smart, natural solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to ecosystem loss, and we are committing new funding to support climate solutions for agriculture. In the coming weeks, the government will bring these and other elements together in a coherent, enhanced climate plan, providing Canadians with transparency as to how Canada will exceed its current 2030 Paris Agreement targets.

After the proposed plan is released, we will be consulting with our partners, indigenous peoples, provinces and territories, municipalities, industry and civil society. These consultations will inform the development of Canada’s updated 2030 target.

I would like to thank the hon. member for her commitment to increased climate action. I look forward to working with the member, our colleagues and Canadians as we work towards bringing forward a plan that will enable Canada to exceed our 2030 targets and help set Canada on a path to achieving a prosperous net-zero emissions future.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-12-03 19:29 [p.2956]

Madam Speaker, when the hon. member refers to our Paris targets, the number he is referring to is that from the third time that Stephen Harper weakened our target. It is the weakest of the three Harper targets, and we still have it five years after an election. I find this not just baffling but tragic.
The Government of Canada committed in Paris, in the COP decision document, that we would increase our 2030 target this year, in 2020, not merely before COP26 next year, but this year, when we have vanishing days left for us to fulfill our international obligations.

We have a short time left. The window closing on 1.5 degrees will close in the coming years, well before 2030. If it closes, it closes for good, and it closes for our children the opportunity to have a liveable world. The stakes could not be higher. The government has to do better.

Paul Lefebvre (Sudbury)
2020-12-03 19:30 [p.2956]

Madam Speaker, to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, global greenhouse gas emissions need to decline rapidly over the next three decades according to scientific experts.

The Paris Agreement calls for governments around the world to take urgent and ambitious action on climate change to keep global warming well below 2 degrees and to pursue efforts to keep it below 1.5 degrees in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees in 2018. That report concluded that global emissions need to reach net zero around mid-century for there to be a reasonable chance of meeting the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees.

On November 19, 2020, the minister tabled the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability bill, which, if passed, would legally bind the government to a process to achieve net zero by 2050. It would make our 2030 target legally binding, and set five-year emission reduction targets to 2050 to improve accountability and transparency. We look forward to working with all the parties to pass this important legislation and strengthen our 2030 targets.

The post Giving the Climate Accountability Act 3 strikes appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-11-20 12:06 [p.2191]

Madam Speaker, the government has failed to meet the warnings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The climate accountability act fails utterly to heed the warning that we have to cut emissions roughly in half by 2030 in order to keep the window open of holding to 1.5° Celsius.

By the time the climate accountability act asks anyone to be accountable, that window could have closed forever. Will the government improve this act, such that it meets the warnings of science while there is still time, for God’s sake?

Terry Duguid (Winnipeg South)
2020-11-20 12:06 [p.2191]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her passion and commitment to this issue.

We are committed to transparency and accountability in this legislation, which will help businesses and people know that they can count on Canada to be a great place to invest. It also sets very clear goals that Canadians expect us to deliver on. They will hold our government and future governments to account if we do not.

I will remind the hon. member that it was the Canadian electorate who ultimately held the Conservatives to account, in 2015 and 2019, on their hostility to climate action. Be assured, we will follow through on this important net-zero commitment.

The post The government must improve the Climate Accountability Act while there is still time appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Would the mayor be able to issue a direction to the chief of the Ottawa police, even if it’s in writing, about a particular investigation? The answer is “no”. Would the prime minister be able to do that with the RCMP? The answer is “absolutely not”. So why would it be here?

We would have a chance this evening to put this to a recorded vote instead of a division if only there were four other members of this place on the opposition benches who would vote for my amendments there before them and were willing to stand up and insist on the vote.

The post Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act (Bill C-15) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the member ask a question of process to support a principle rather than a question of process to undermine a principle, as we heard from the NDP.

The post Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act (Bill C-15) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“Although I voted for C-15 at Second Reading, and continue to support many of the core provisions of this Bill, including those to strengthen the tenure of our military judges, and those to provide our military judges with greater judicial discretion, I had hoped that the serious concerns raised by the Provost Marshall and others would be taken into consideration in Committee.

“Important safeguards were put in place to prevent political interference in Military Police investigations following the tragic incident in Somalia. But by allowing the Vice-Chief of Defence Staff to issue instructions regarding a specific ongoing investigation, Bill C-15 will create ample opportunity for such interference to again take place.

“Given that these concerns remained unaddressed, I tabled Report Stage amendments to C-15 which sought to defend the independence of our Military Police from political interference. While sadly I expected the Harper Conservatives to reject any amendment that protected an accountability body from political interference, I am disappointed that neither the Liberals or the NDP saw it fit to have a vote on something so critical to the proper functioning of our Canadian Forces.”

The post Statement by Elizabeth May on C-15 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We are talking about military police investigating events of a criminal nature after the fact. The Provost Marshal would certainly be able to control when military police are investigating an event. The idea had never occurred to anyone until 1998 that the Chief of the Defence Staff should ever give instructions to affect the investigation of an event being investigated by military police. We are now told that in 2013 we have suddenly realized that since 1998 this separation of authorities would have somehow put people at risk in a field of battle.

Conservatives say I do not understand it, and they are right. I do not believe it. I do not understand how it could possibly be the case that one would want to accept this reason for causing this entire bill to potentially violate the charter.

I would ask my friend from Beaches—East York for his thoughts.

[BMK4RMYn9Qc]

Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, the government side has offered up this very narrow hypothetical set of circumstances to put a bill, which is on the whole a very positive step forward, in danger of being deemed unconstitutional. The general rule and principles set out in the accountability framework should survive in Bill C-15. It is the expectation of Canadians that any justice system be fair and reasonable; I would even dare suggest that most Canadians would suggest that there be a higher onus on a justice system that applies to the men and women of our armed forces in light of what we ask them to do on our behalf.

The post Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act (Bill C-15) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We heard from the parliamentary secretary that there are safeguards because these instructions will eventually be made public from the Vice Chief of Defence Staff, who in my view should not be interfering in military police investigations.

However, when we look at section 18.5(5), we find that there are instances where the legislation contemplates never making it public at all. The Vice Chief of Defence Staff has given instructions and interfered with an investigation if the Provost Marshal considers “that it would not be in the best interests of the administration of justice for that instruction or guideline to be made available to the public”.

We know military justice is different. How far from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms do we move if there are also provisions that these instructions are never made public?

[D4tJYQQjHZg]

Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, the thing about justice is it must always be seen to be transparent, being done as well as accomplishing a fair trial and process. The justice system is not just about charge and conviction, or charge and acquittal. It is about a process that starts from an investigation, to a charge, to a process trial of some description and an outcome. It has to be seen as being open, fair and transparent. That means we need to be inside that piece.

There is special legislation around certain aspects where that is not the case. However, inside the military in these aspects it is very much necessary for it to be open. It cannot be any other way if we are to truly have a fair justice system that folks respect. That is really what it is about, respecting the system. It is not about the outcome of individual cases. It truly needs to be seen as being transparent. It needs to be seen as being done in a fair and honest way and cannot be done in any other fashion.

To have pieces where we can say “This can go, but this cannot” then starts to impugn the system in the minds of folks looking at it. It is not necessarily the way to have a system that would actually, at the end of the day, deem itself to be fair or seem to be fair. That is a major problem.

The post Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act (Bill C-15) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

John McKay: Mr. Speaker, the one area that struck me as quite compelling was the issue of summary trials, particularly Col. Drapeau, who stated, “[an] accused before a summary trial has no right to appeal either the verdict or the sentence”. Then he went on to talk about the limitations on transcripts, evidence and access to counsel, all of which could potentially result in either a Criminal Code conviction or detention. Access to counsel, transcripts, rules of evidence and a right to rebut, these are all things that we as civilians would rightly expect and all of those things are absent. That is an area where the government could have done better. However, in its reach for mediocrity, it achieved it.

The post Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act (Bill C-15) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I raised a point of order when my amendments on Bill C-38 were being completely ignored by virtually every set speech of the Conservative members of Parliament. At the point where one member was talking about the economy of Greece, I rose and asked for the relevance to the amendments before us. I was told that they were generally on point because the subject of the bill was economic growth and development.

Therefore, certainly the member for St. John’s East was in the ballpark of discussing my amendments, and many previous speeches on other bills have been way out of left field.

The post Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act (Bill C-15) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I would remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that the principle of police independence is paramount. Probably the leading authority is Lord Denning in Ex Parte Blackburn in 1968. This bill, according to serious experts, and not just one or two witnesses, is casting aside as if it were an irrelevant witness the Military Police Complaints Commission. My friend the parliamentary secretary should give serious regard to these amendments and change his position.

Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Military Police Complaints Commission is actually relevant to this debate. If there is a problem that the Provost Marshal sees with the instructions he or she has receives or with any of the procedures as exercised under the legislation now proposed as unamended, that person has the right to go to the Military Police Complaints Commission. This is another one of the safeguards embodied in the bill as unamended.

What the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands fails to note is that we have heard proposals for amendments very similar to hers at committee already. She has not addressed the question of operational effectiveness, operational exigencies, the unique role of the Canadian Forces, that means that the independence of police investigations needs to be balanced with other rights, such as the right to life of the Canadian Forces.

Is the member prepared to deny them the information about a threat to their lives in order to protect one principle of a police investigation, which is important but which is clearly trumped by the special circumstances of the battlefield?

The post Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act (Bill C-15) appeared first on Elizabeth May.