Time: 03/10/2022 15:11:55
Context: Question
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, back in April, even before the current government approved the drilling in Baie du Nord, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres pointed out that we are on track to more than double the 1.5°C Paris target. He stated, “Some government leaders are saying one thing and doing another. Simply put, they are lying.”

Since 1990, our emissions have risen more than any other G7 country. When Antonio Guterres said some government leaders are lying, which countries’ leaders do we think he is referencing?

Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. member for her comment and her dedication to the issue of climate change over many decades.

As the IPCC has said, countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 43% by 2030. We are on track to meeting at least a 40% reduction and on our way to meeting a 45% reduction.

We are doing more right now than any other country in the G7 to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Our investments, on a per-capita basis, are three times what the Americans just announced with the IRA in the U.S.

The post UN Secretary General says leaders are lying about climate. Does he mean Canada’s leaders? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Within six months, Canada ratified the treaty – the first industrialised country to do so.

In that treaty, we pledged to cut emissions and plan for adaptation. So far, we have gone in the wrong direction on emissions. In 2019, the last year for which we have statistics, Canada was 13% above 1990 levels. The drop in total emissions of approximately 9% between 2019 and 2020 was largely due to the Covid 19 pandemic. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) confirms that it expects emissions to have risen between 2020 and 2021. We must stop adding and start subtracting our emissions. We are still the worst performer in the G-7.

That poor record is matched by our lamentably slow pace in adapting to those levels of climate change we can no longer avoid.

We committed in 1992, and again in the Paris Agreement, to act on adaptation.

Only now, thirty years later, has Canada committed to developing a national adaptation strategy.

Click here to read the full submission.

Supplementary materials:

• INTEGRATING SCIENCE TO ADDRESS FOOD AND HEALTH WITHIN GLOBAL AGENDA 2030 – Gordon A. McBean
• The Influence of Denier’s Science on Not Addressing Climate Change – Gordon McBean
• Building Climate Resilient Communities: Living Within the Earth’s Carrying Capacity SSHRC Knowledge Synthesis Grant April 2021 G.A. McBean and P. Kovacs, Western University and ICLR – Co-Principal Investigators J.A. Voogt and G.A. Kopp, Western University and S. Guilbault, ICLR – Collaborators
• Building Climate Resilient Communities in Recovery from COVID-19 and Moving to a Green and Resilient Society

The post Green Party of Canada submission to Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It has been a week of carnage for the poor people of Ukraine. Hospitals bombed, a theatre destroyed where hundreds of people had been sheltering – Russian bombs repeatedly hit civilian targets.

On Tuesday, for the first time in history, a foreign leader addressed our parliament by zoom. I have never been more nervous about any speech than the one I had the opportunity to deliver following President Volodymyr Zelensky’s address. In advance, the only thing I was sure I would say was to share the letter from Ukrainian Green president, Vitaliy Kononov.

I had no more then 3-4 minutes and there was so much I wanted to say. But being the last speaker, after our prime minister, the Speakers from the House and Senate, and leaders of Conservative, Bloc Quebecois and NDP, I wanted to hear them first, absorb President Zelensky’s speech and not repeat what others had said. I never deliver a prepared text in any event, but this crisis and knowing I would be speaking directly to a man I admire so much – in a shelter and targeted for assassination by Vladimir Putin – increased my nervousness. More than usual, it felt like stepping out on a high wire without a net.

Many of you will have already seen the speech as it received a higher than usual amount of media coverage, but here are the links for the video of the speech, and thanks to Policy magazine, the text:

https://elizabethmaymp.ca/elizabeth-may-responds-to-president-zelenskyys-address-to-the-canadian-parliament/

https://www.policymagazine.ca/truth-and-the-courage-of-the-ukrainian-people-will-prevail/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=truth-and-the-courage-of-the-ukrainian-people-will-prevail

We must do more to support Ukraine and defend it against this brutal Russian aggression. But, as I wrote last week, we cannot respond with a NATO “no fly zone.” The risk of an expanded war and of a nuclear exchange is simply unacceptably high. I wanted to be sure to keep separate the Russian people from Putin. Mine was the only speech to thank the enormously brave peace protesters within Russia.

One other point I wanted to make as the world increasingly paints this conflict as a morality play in which Putin is a bad man and war criminal (which assuredly he is) was that his conduct was not out of keeping for super-powers – East or West. I remember the 1964 escalation of the war in Vietnam authorized by the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, by-passing the Constitutionally required ¾ vote in the U.S. Senate. The resolution was named for an event that never happened. Famously, the Iraq War under George W Bush and Tony Blair was based on a pile of lies about “weapons of mass destruction” in Saddam Hussein’s arsenal. Wars are fought based on lies and war crimes are committed. No wonder the U.S. government has fought so hard against the establishment of the International Criminal Court. While we join the cries to bring Putin to justice, we must not forget that other leaders, from the US, UK, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Israel, have done much the same.

I gravely fear that this current conflict could affect our next federal budget – expected some time in April. The calls to spend 2 percent of our budget on war and preparations for war, the NATO members’ target, must be rejected. Let’s demand that we spend 2 percent on peace and preparations for peace. That increased spending could go immediately to helping Ukraine.

In the media coverage after the speech, I learned I had been noticed by none other than Vladimir Putin himself. I am now banned from ever travelling to Russia. I regard this as an enormous honour.

In non-war news this week, the science reports on global warming are deeply alarming and almost unnoticed. There are simultaneous heat waves in the Arctic and the Antarctic. This from the Washington Post: “Antarctic climatology has been rewritten,” tweeted Stefano Di Battista, a researcher who has published studies on Antarctic temperatures. He added that such temperature anomalies would have been considered “impossible” and “unthinkable” before they actually occurred. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/03/18/antarctica-heat-wave-climate-change/

And this headline from the Physics journal, Phys.org: Hot poles: Antarctica, Arctic 40 and 30 degrees Celsius above normal.

An atmospheric river in Antarctica is accompanying these unprecedented temperatures. To say this is all unprecedented is to state the obvious. To say the world is distracted by war, is equally redundant. To say we need to be able to focus on war, pandemic and the dangers of a deteriorating life-support system is a call to all humanity to rally for democracy, peace and survival all at once.

Not easy, but essential.

I try. But I totally sympathize with leaders who cannot. We need unrelenting public pressure.

As COVID restrictions ease, I am finally able to announce actual events!

We have a fundraiser for the Green Party on Thursday in Ottawa with Amita and Mike and me. Please join us. It will be the kick-off for phase 2 of the Green Virtual General meeting (see details in the P.S.)

And I have a slew of meetings coming up in person in Saanich-Gulf Islands. Details are listed below. Please mark them down in your calendar!

Thanks again for all the lovely emails this last week. I will be back in Ottawa from today until April 7th.

With love and prayers for peace,

Elizabeth

P.S.

Join us this March 25-27 for the 18th General Meeting of the Green Party of Canada.

Upcoming SGI Community Meetings (non-partisan!)

Details may be changed, watch for confirmations!

BRENTWOOD BAY COMMUNITY MEETING: Friday, April 8 – 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm PST – Central Saanich Cultural Centre – 1209 Clarke Rd, Brentwood Bay, BC V8M 1P8

GORDON HEAD COMMUNITY MEETING: Saturday, April 9 – 2:30 pm to 4:00 pm PST – Mt Doug Auditorium – 4100 Lambrick Way, Victoria, BC V8N 5R3

SALT SPRING ISLAND COMMUNITY MEETING: Sunday, April 10 – 5:30 pm to 7:00 pm PST – Fulford Hall – 2591 Fulford-Ganges Rd, Salt Spring Island, BC V8K 1Z4

CORDOVA BAY COMMUNITY MEETING: Tuesday, April 12 – 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm PST – CB55+ Association Facility- 5238 Cordova Bay Road Victoria, BC V8Y 2L2

PENDER ISLANDS COMMUNITY MEETING: Wednesday, April 13 – 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm PST – Pender Islands Community Hall – 4418 Bedwell Harbour Road Pender Island BC V0N 2M1

SIDNEY COMMUNITY MEETING: Thursday, April 14 – 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm PST – Mary Winspear Centre – 2243 Beacon Ave, Sidney, BC V8L 1W9

JOINT COMMUNITY MEETING WITH MP MAY AND MLA OLSEN: Wednesday, April 20 – 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm PST – St. Elizabeth’s Church – 10030 Third Street Sidney, BC V8L 3B3

MAYNE ISLAND COMMUNITY MEETING: Thursday, April 21 – 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm PST – Mayne Island Community Centre – 493 Felix Jack Rd, Mayne Island, BC V0N 2J2

SATURNA ISLAND COMMUNITY MEETING: Saturday, April 23 – 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm PST – Saturna Recreation and Culture Centre – 104 Harris Rd, Saturna, BC V0N 2Y0

GALIANO ISLAND COMMUNITY MEETING: UNCONFIRMED: TO BE DETERMINED – Galiano Community Hall – 141 Sturdies Bay Rd Galiano Island, BC V0N 1P0

The post Good Sunday Morning – March 20 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

My week was dominated by completing work with Shadow Cabinet and Parliamentary Caucus on the Green Party submission to the Emission Reduction Plan required by the so-called Canadian Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act. Just a sidenote that it is wonderful to be engaged in open and collegial work between MPs and the party. Not commenting on the past- just celebrating progress! I wrote about the public consultation process on climate last week, emphasizing the deadline for submissions was Friday, January 14.

On-line, climate groups were all alerting supporters to get comments in by January 14th. Then on Tuesday, I had an email from one of my favourite friends in the world, Janice Harvey in New Brunswick. She was getting ready to assign the on-line survey to one of her university classes and sharp-eyed, she noticed that the government website actually said comments were due “before January 14.” She asked me if I was sure the deadline was the 14th- or could “before January 14” mean January 13th? I sent a quick personal email to two people I regard as friends – one is the environment minister and the other his parliamentary secretary. Pretty quickly, I got a reply that the deadline was, in fact, midnight the 13th!

I started letting people know. And it got a bit confusing. I am super grateful that Amita Kuttner, our new interim leader, is prepared to treat Green Party members as activists who would want to know. The party sent out an alert (if you are a Green member, you should have gotten it) that the deadline was 24 hours earlier than we had thought.

On Friday, Environment and Climate Change issued a news release:

“Since the formal engagement process launched on December 10, 2021, the federal government received approximately 20,000 public submissions. In response to the overwhelming interest and useful feedback received so far, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Honourable Steven Guilbeault, is extending the deadline for public submissions to the 2030 ERP by one week to 11:59 p.m. PST on January 21, 2022.”

Considering we had over 100,000 submissions on the electoral reform process, back when I was on the special committee struck to deliver on Trudeau’s promise that 2015 would be our last election under first part the post, (a Goldie Oldie of the Broken Promises Hit Parade), 20,000 does not strike me as a big number. With an additional week I hope we can encourage thousands more to demand stronger climate action. Here again is the excellent tool kit from Climate Messengers: https://link.climatemessengers.ca/consult

One area of controversy is the role, if any, of nuclear energy in climate solutions. As a both climate activist and also an anti-nuclear activist, I went through a real crisis back when I was Executive Director of Sierra Club of Canada. The whole organization went through a profound re-think. Green Parties around the world, including Canada, have also grappled with the question. Some members do not agree with our position.

If nuclear was any possible part of a solution to the threat of global warming, how could we rule it out?

It turns out, that is a very big IF and the answer to this day is NOT. Sure, Minister of Natural Resources, the Hon Jonathan Wilkinson says repeatedly “there is no pathway to Net Zero that does not include nuclear.” The federal Department of Natural Resources (formerly Energy, Mines and Resources) has historically favoured the nuclear industry. Canadians have invested tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for nuclear power. Then, under Harper, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd and its remaining assets were sold for a song ($15 million!) to that favoured and coddled insider group, SNC Lavalin.

My favourite quote on nukes was Fred Knelman’s great line from the 1980s, “Nuclear is a future technology whose time has passed.”

In the current context, nuclear is in the way of the decarbonization of our economy. The way the Green Party has analyzed it, we need to test any public energy investments for climate action against clear criteria:

· Per dollar invested, how many tons of carbon are eliminated?

· Per dollar invested, how many jobs are created?

· How quickly can the technology/investment be up and running, reducing emissions?

By these simple criteria, nuclear scores far below energy conservation and energy efficiency improvements. It is miles behind solar energy installation, wind power, or geothermal. It is capital intensive and creates few jobs. It takes over a decade, at a minimum, to move from concept to approval to construction. When poor performers take public dollars, there is an opportunity cost. New nuclear is an obstacle to a zero carbon economy.

On top of that, it involves uranium mining which has traditionally involved abuses of indigenous rights as well as environmental contamination. It involves the creation of high-level nuclear waste that must be contained from the biosphere for at least a quarter of a million years – with no known technology to do so. As well, nuclear energy inevitably increases the risk of nuclear proliferation for military purposes.

Now, we have the new propaganda for “Small Modular Reactors” – as though there is something magical about “SMRs” that would make new nuclear worthy of consideration. Again, the industry consortium promoting new nuclear, is led by SNC Lavalin. The federal subsidies going to New Brunswick where Point Lepreau’s high level nuclear waste essentially sitting in swimming pools, wlil be the source of “harvested” fuel. No existing SMR exists. This technology is experimental and unproven for commercial use. And First Nations in New Brunswick object to, yet again, violating indigenous rights.

https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/peskotomuhkati-nation-nuclear-reactor-testing-new-brunswick-small-modular-reactors/

Now the nuclear debate is raging in Europe after a committee of the European Parliament suggested that nuclear could be rated as a transitional form of energy. In any earlier consideration, nuclear has been ruled out in any climate friendly technologies, such as under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism, or from any consideration for the Paris Agreement. Now the whole notion that the conditions that were suggested to make nuclear meet those tests has been called into question. The hypotheticals to be achieved would appear to put it out of the running. The vote in the European Parliament could be very close indeed. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/misunderstanding-could-block-nuclear-from-claiming-green-eu-label-industry-warns/

A reminder to please tune in next Saturday to hear from Interim leader Amita Kuttner, Mike Morice and me at our Saanich-Gulf Islands Green AGM! The link below is to RSVP. Please join us.

Hope you and your family are being careful and staying safe. John and I finally got our booster shots this week. But we know the vaccines alone do not provide full protection. Masks and distancing rules continue. Be well and healthy. And eventually, we can get to the other side of this. Let’s hope humanity learns some lessons!

Have a great week!
Love,
Elizabeth

PS:
Here is the link to register for the SGI Green AGM – on Saturday, January 22, 2022, from 2-4 pm BC time.

Please RSVP here if you would like to attend the AGM online via Zoom. Note that this is a two-step process. After you register you will receive an email from Zoom asking that you register to get the meeting link. Hope to see you there!

Saanich-Gulf Islands Greens
http://www.sgigreenparty.ca/

The post Good Sunday Morning – January 16 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-06-09 19:41 [p.8188]

Madam Speaker, I am resuming a question I asked previously. The minister of fisheries answered the question, but it pertains to climate targets and climate accountability. I made the point in question period that, when we talk about climate targets, they are not political. Climate targets are deeply about the science.

The minister of fisheries replied at the time that the new targets the Prime Minister had just announced at the Earth Day summit with Joe Biden were, in fact, to be put into the law and actually reflected in part of what is called the net-zero emissions accountability act, Bill C-12. Since then, the government decided not to put those targets in the act.

The key point I want to make today in our adjournment proceedings is about the nature of what we committed to do under the Paris Agreement in 2015 at COP 21. The key thing we committed to do was to work with all the other nations on earth to hold the global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5° above what those levels were before the industrial revolution, and to certainly hold it as far below 2° as possible.

Why does this matter? The survival of human civilization is very much at risk if we miss these targets. We are now more than 1°C in global average temperature increase above where we were as a society and a planet before the industrial revolution. Going above 1.5° is actually not a safe zone; it is a danger zone. It involves a significant risk to human civilization’s survival. Going above 2° would put our future generations, our own children, very much at risk. That is why the targets are not political. They are about the science.

I am heartbroken that the government chose to put forward its so-called climate accountability legislation, which aims for a level of reductions of emissions that are not tied to the science. It actually puts us at risk. There is a lot of clamouring around Bill C-12 and the title “net-zero”, but net-zero by 2050 is the wrong target. Net-zero by 2050 does not hold to 1.5°. In the words of Greta Thunberg, net-zero by 2050 is “surrender” without short-term and near-term targets that ensure global emissions are cut in half by 2030.

I have just this moment left clause-by-clause as it ends on Bill C-12. The milestone year remains 2030, but the large problem remains that, if we do not improve what we have agreed to do, the target of 40% to 45% below our 2005 levels by 2030 referenced when I put this forward in question period is not close to being what we committed to do in Paris.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set forth what all countries on earth have to do. Canada has a larger burden than most, because it is the only country in the industrialized world to see our emissions go up so very much since 1990 and go up since Paris.

We have a commitment to do better and to do more. That means that we should be revising our target upward and we should not delude ourselves into believing that net-zero by 2050 is anything other than a public relations gloss on what the science tells us we must do. We are in a climate emergency. We need to act like it and ban fracking, cancel the TMX pipeline and do those things in our power, as a wealthy industrialized society, to move to climate security.

The post Canada’s climate targets must be stronger appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-03-10 18:07 [p.4851]

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to present my opinion in French. I completely agree with my colleague from Jonquière, and I thank him.
Greta Thunberg has said:

Carbon neutrality by 2050 is surrender. We have to have a first milestone year in 2025. What are his comments?

Mario Simard (Jonquière)
2021-03-10 18:07 [p.4851]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more.

First of all, I thank my hon. colleague, who is so kind and who always makes an effort to address us in French. It is a nice change, compared to some other members. I totally agree with her. There is an old adage in French about how one can never be too bold. I will not get into where it came from, but I am not seeing any boldness from the federal government at the moment. There is a consensus on this, and it is unfortunate.

Earlier I mentioned the two big questions: how to reconcile the economy and the environment, and how to put an end to this national self-centredness, with some refusing to act until others do. How do we fix this? For us, the answer is quite simple: We must get out of the Canadian oil economy. Until everyone is willing to take a hard look in the mirror, Alberta’s economy will not improve and we will not achieve—

The post Bill C-12: Carbon neutrality by 2050 is surrender appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-03-10 17:19 [p.4844]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay was absolutely right. The science demands that we have a milestone year in 2025 that is meaningful.
The act, as written, is dangerous. How does the hon. parliamentary secretary square the real science with this fake bill?

Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge)
2021-03-10 17:20 [p.4844]

Madam Speaker, I look to what the former leader of the New Democratic Party stated when we tabled Bill C-12. He said this was a real plan to fight climate change. A number of organizations and stakeholders commented positively on not only where this takes our government, but where this takes the country in hitting its 2050 target. I can send the hon. member the list.

The post 2025 must be a milestone year for reducing emissions appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Not outraged

The post Good Sunday Morning – February 28 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-02-22 19:53 [p.4407]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to take the adjournment proceedings this evening to review a question and to hopefully get a better answer than the one I received back on November 30, 2020.
At that time, of course, being in calendar year 2020, the question of extreme importance and urgency was whether the government was going to fulfill a commitment that the Government of Canada made during the negotiations at COP 15 in Paris. That commitment was to improve and enhance what is called an NDC in the Paris language, a nationally determined contribution, generally referred to as a target. We committed in Paris that in calendar year 2020 we would improve our target and do so again every five years thereafter.

When I asked the minister what the plans were to improve our target in 2020, I was disappointed that he did not answer directly, but the answer is now very clear. The time has passed. We are in 2021. We have not changed our target. We have not met the commitment we made.

In conversations with people around the minister’s office, it was reported to me that the department did not think that commitment was legally binding and other countries have not done it either. I find both of those responses appalling. It is a commitment that we made. It can be found in paragraph 24 of the COP 21 decision document, in which every country with a 2030 deadline for their first NDC was to improve their target in 2020. As to the idea that other countries have not done it, 69 of them have. Of course, it is only the countries that have 2030 deadlines.

Here we are in 2021 with a target that is completely out of step with all of our G7 partners and most of the industrialized world. We have one of the weakest targets in the world and the weakest of an industrialized country, except perhaps Saudi Arabia. We now have an opportunity to improve our record. I want to shift gears here to the potential for getting things right.

We are desperately close to being completely out of time in terms of carbon budgeting to avoid going above 1.5° Celsius global average temperature increase. This is in fact the target that is in the Paris Agreement, which is a legally binding document. This increase must not be exceeded, but on almost every review of where we are on the science, it is almost impossible to hold to 1.5°. There is a window on holding to our target. It will have closed, and permanently, well before 2030.

We now have the opportunity to improve our target and do our fair share, which would be at least twice what we have now committed to do, and that opportunity is coming up now because President Biden has established a climate leaders summit to take place on Earth Day, April 22, obviously, I am sure, by Zoom.

That is when Canada is really going to have to step up and say that we are prepared to reduce our emissions by 60% below 2005 levels by 2030, and set in place a first milestone year under Bill C-12 of reductions that are firm by 2025, of at least 15%. That would be the beginning of a clear commitment to the kind of action we said we would undertake when we signed the Paris Agreement.

The post We are almost out of time to avoid more than 1.5 degrees global average temp. increase appeared first on Elizabeth May.

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.