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)
2021-05-03 16:22 [p.6543]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say it out loud because I have not yet had the chance to. It is good to see this conversation about how we can reduce emissions and an attempt to get to a real plan.

It would be great to see Conservatives in this country join the Conservative leadership over decades, going back to Margaret Thatcher, in understanding that climate science requires a response. The concern I have is that the hon. member has suggested that carbon sequestration should be offset in the addition of our megatonnes of pollution.

We already know from our scientists that Canada’s boreal forests are a net source of carbon because of insects, diseases and fires. We already know that our permafrost is thawing, creating its role as a net source of carbon.

Going back to Bill C-12, I do have a question for my hon. colleague. While I agree that it is egregious that the minister skipped the parliamentary committee process in appointing a committee in advance of amendments, would she agree it would be far better to have the committee based entirely on experts who could actually hold the government as a whole to account, not merely advise the minister?

Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton)
2021-05-03 16:23 [p.6543]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is always passionate about this file.
It is very sad that the government, with a whole department of climate experts, does not have a plan. It has had six years in government, running on an agenda to do something to address climate change, and it has failed. What is important is to come up with a plan that all parties could agree to, so regardless of who is in the driver’s seat, it will happen.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands pointed out the boreal forest and the fact it is a net emitter. That is what it is. That is a fact. Gaming the system to try to not count things because we do not like what they say is not science. Net-zero is net emissions minus net absorptions, regardless of where they are. I know that makes finding solutions and reducing more complicated, but we cannot just play a game with this. It is real.

The post C-12 committee should be composed entirely of climate experts appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-05-03 13:12 [p.6513]

Madam Speaker, at this point, around the world there are 11 countries that have passed climate accountability legislation. Canada’s will hold the distinction of being the weakest. If we are looking for a moon shot, and if we are shooting for a moon, this is the equivalent of a stepladder.

Does my hon. colleague not think it would have been wise for the federal government to consult, particularly with the gold standard? The country with the climate accountability that has worked for the longest and the best is the U.K. The legislation before us today differs in substantial ways from theirs, particularly by not having an independent expert group that monitors government progress and reports to the nation, as opposed to a multi-stakeholder advisory group for the minister. Would the member not agree it would be better to try to base our bill on what has worked elsewhere?

Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis)
2021-05-03 13:13 [p.6513]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member’s views and insight carry a lot of weight in this chamber. As the member knows, the bill will hopefully be passed at second reading and make its way to the environment committee, where amendments will no doubt be tabled and we can have discussion about the points the member has raised.

However, it is important to acknowledge that there is much room for expert advice in this bill, and this is key. It is important that we do rely on expert advice and indeed that any consultative body be not just a diverse group of individuals who represent the country the way this House does. We need also some expertise to move forward, so I appreciate the member’s point.

The post Canada should base climate accountability legislation on the UK equivalent appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-04-27 13:39 [p.6234]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to finally be able to speak to Bill C-12, the climate accountability act to reach net-zero. It was introduced in November, and now we find ourselves with a time allocation. This really does need to be debated in this place.

I know how very carefully the parliamentary secretary and the minister, when they speak of all parties in this place ready to support this bill, somehow do not mention the Green Party of Canada, the party that is known and trusted by Canadians, more than any other, to put climate at the centre of what we do to ensure sustainability and that future generations have a hospitable climate, one that will sustain the human civilization going forward.

Therefore, when we hear the words “climate accountability act” and “net-zero by 2050”, we think they really do sound good. I know a lot of people will be stunned to realize that I, as someone who has worked on the climate issue for as long as I have, starting in 1986 on the early stages of negotiating the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and being at the Rio Earth Summit, and so many other conferences I do not even want to go back and remember them all, I am struggling with how I am going to vote on this bill. How is it that I could think that it could be dangerous?

I will explain how that is, and I will make my comments in two parts. The first will look to the science. This is all about the science. We have to get it right. There are such things as carbon budgets, which are not included in this legislation. We know that the Liberals are talking about net-zero by 2050.

Let me reference for a moment Greta Thunberg. We all know she is a very dedicated climate activist. Greta Thunberg says net-zero by 2050 is “surrender” because it gives politicians the illusion that we have time, we have a couple of decades, we can work toward this and we can figure it out. That is not the case anymore.

Let me quote someone the Liberals will have heard of. In his book Value(s): Building a Better World for All, Mark Carney explains carbon budgets probably better than anyone I have ever heard. On page 273 of the book, he writes, “The carbon budget to limit temperature rises to below catastrophic levels is rapidly being exhausted. If we had started in 2000, we could have hit the 1.5°C objective by halving emissions every 30 years. Now, we must halve emissions every 10 years. If we wait another four years, the challenge will be to halve emissions every year. If we wait another eight years, our 1.5°C carbon budget will be exhausted.”
How can we have a climate accountability act that has its first milestone year at 2030? Clearly, that is too late.

I would like to share a quotation from French President Emmanuel Macron. This quote is from a speech he delivered at last week’s Earth Day summit hosted by U.S. President Joe Biden.

Here is what he said: “We have to drastically increase everyone’s targets if we want to achieve the 1.5-degree objective…. 2030 is the new 2050.”

They cannot get much clearer than that: 2030 is the new 2050. We have legislation here that tells us we will be all right, we will have our first milestone year in 2030. That is past the time of any accountability for the current government and past any accountability for probably the next one too. What we need to do is make this bill work.

I think it can be fixed, but I am very worried because the Minister of Environment and Climate Change asked me and the Green Party to propose amendments back in December. We have proposed the key thing, and without consulting Parliament, without waiting until we got to second reading and committee, he has already negated one of the key things that needs to be fixed in this bill.

Turning now from the science to the policy, there are climate accountability acts in about 12 countries around the world right now. The gold standard is the law the U.K. brought in in 2008. It set up an expert, independent, arm’s-length group, a climate accountability institute that actually advises government as a whole, not just the minister and not just a multi-stakeholder group, but an expert group with arm’s-length capacity.

That was one of my key recommendations to the minister, to make sure that the group advising the minister is an expert group made up of scientists. Without waiting to go to committee to see if my amendment might pass, we now have an appointed group, and it is a multi-stakeholder group, without independence from government, advising the minister and creating delays in the way it negotiates and moves forward.

To have a 2025 milestone year, we need to do one thing and we need to know the minister is open to it, and he has already told the media that he is not open to it. We need to have the target for 2025 baked into the legislation before third reading. Now that the government says it is heading to 45%, which is far too weak if we are looking at the science, and I will get back to this if I have a moment, we need to at least say that by 2025 we will have a 25% reduction, or even 15%.

That needs to be baked into the legislation, so we have some accountability. The way the legislation works, it also says that two years before we hit the first milestone, we would have the first reporting event. That would be very consistent with the Paris agreement and the requirement for a global stock-take year in 2023. To get on the right page for that, we really do need a 2025 milestone year.
Again, looking at climate accountability legislation all around the world, something else they have in common is that the first milestone year every time is within five years. The U.K., as I mentioned, first passed legislation in 2008. It also passed legislation in 2019, and its first milestone year was 2025. New Zealand brought in its legislation, and within five years of it passing, 2025 was its first milestone year.

It is unfortunate that we hear Liberal after Liberal using talking points that mislead this House. I do not blame them personally. I think the bad advice is coming from within Environment Canada itself. I do not understand how the department is unfamiliar with what we negotiated in Paris.

However, I can be very clear that 2030 is not the only year referenced in the Paris agreement. It also has 2023 as the first global stock-take year, and under agreements negotiated in Paris, specifically the COP 21 decision document at paragraph 24, Canada was supposed to improve our NDC in calendar 2020. We ignored that requirement.

Now we are seeing improvement in Canada’s stance based on the announcements the Prime Minister made last week at President Biden’s climate summit, but they are clearly inadequate. The minimum Canada should be doing is 60% below 2005 levels by 2030.

Can we fix Bill C-12? I think we can, but the reality, and it is a harsh reality, is that the suggested amendments we have made so far have already been rejected by the Liberal government. Now we have a five-hour closure on debate. I very much fear that I will not be able to vote for Bill C-12 as is, not because I do not want climate action, but because, as Greta Thunberg says, without a near-term target that is meaningful, net-zero by 2050 is surrender.

Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North)
2021-04-27 13:48 [p.6236]
Madam Speaker, the government, in bringing forward this legislation, is responding positively to what the population as a whole wants to see.

In the past, the government has indicated that legislation might not necessarily be perfect, and that is one of the reasons we want to go into committee, so we can listen to the amendments being brought forward to improve the legislation. However, the idea of net-zero and the creation of an advisory committee is very positive.

Is the hon. member familiar with some of the appointments that have been made to the advisory committee? If she is, could she provide her comments on the quality of the appointments?

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-04-27 13:49 [p.6236]
Madam Speaker, I will not comment on the individuals involved. Many of them are colleagues or friends. It does not matter, the structure is wrong. This is not a time for a multi-stakeholder group. I strongly recommend, and I have done so to the minister, that the government bring back the national round table on the environment and the economy, which was killed by Stephen Harper in the omnibus budget, Bill C-38. We do like multi-stakeholder advice, and we like multi-stakeholders at committees, but this is not a place for a multi-stakeholder committee. This is a place for a panel of experts to make sure the government understands the science, because so far it does not seem to.

Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan)
2021-04-27 13:50 [p.6236]
Madam Speaker, I appreciated the member’s references to Mark Carney’s book, which I have recently finished reading. I have to say, concerning his call to more action on the environment and also greater fiscal responsibility, he seems to be putting himself outside of his chosen party on a number of issues. I hope the members who fawned over his speech at the convention would consider reading his book and absorbing at least some of his insights.

I want to ask the member about the Conservative amendment, which formally, under the rubrics of debate, we are considering right now. It is an amendment that calls for the government to take a second run at the bill. The Conservative Party and the Green Party might not agree on the precise conclusions, but the amendment calls for the government to implement a real plan that recognizes the challenges of climate change and also to come up with a way of integrating concern for the economy and the environment.

What is the member’s take specifically on the amendment from the Conservative House leader?

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-04-27 13:51 [p.6236]
Madam Speaker, I am afraid I tend to agree with the Liberals on this one in that it would have the effect of killing the bill. If the bill is not going to be fixed, we might as well kill it, but it is too soon to decide to do that.

I do note, by the way, that the Liberals managed to have Mark Carney speak to the convention without letting him give an actual speech. He was interviewed by the hon. member for Toronto Centre. I had looked forward to hearing his words on many things. I found the book Value(s) extremely significant. It would be worth reading for every Canadian because it really speaks to a new way of governing to build our society back better on many levels. I regretted that he was only interviewed.

Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l’Île)
2021-04-27 13:51 [p.6236]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation, which was very interesting.

A Conservative member who spoke earlier seemed to really emphasize carbon sequestration and all the ways carbon can be stored underground. I would like to hear her comments on that.

Furthermore, a number of environmental organizations have pointed out the shortcomings in the bill, including the absence of any obligation to achieve results and the lack of binding measures. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about establishing accountability mechanisms and having the government’s measures reviewed by an independent authority based on the achievement—

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-04-27 13:53 [p.6236]
Madam Speaker, on carbon, there is never any harm in looking at speculative technologies, but this one so far has proven to be very expensive and does not work terribly well, whereas renewable energy works very well. We need to move fast.

As to the accountability mechanisms, there are none in this bill. If the minister fails 10 years from now, all he or she has to do is say sorry and give the reasons for the failure.

The post I may not be able to vote for Bill C-12. Here’s why. appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post Climate targets aren’t about politics, They’re about science. appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, climate targets are not about politics, they are about science, and even though Canada has improved our target last week at President Biden’s climate summit, we are not aligned with the science. Speaker after speaker at that summit made it clear that we must achieve the bulk of reductions this decade if we are going to hold to 1.5°C.

Will the minister and the Prime Minister be open to changing Bill C-12 with a specific target due in 2025 baked into the bill?

Hon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we support enhanced reporting to ensure we are on track to meeting our newly announced national determined contributions for 2030. To this end, we have proposed embedding Canada’s new target for 2030 directly into the act, which is 40% to 45% below 2005 emission levels.

Climate change is an urgent issue and we must work together on it. We hope the Green Party will support the bill at second reading so that we can continue to work constructively to further strengthen the bill.

The post Climate targets aren’t about politics. They’re about science. appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-04-15 15:09 [p.5684]

Mr. Speaker, Canada’s climate record just continues to get worse. The most recently released data shows that our greenhouse gas emissions were rising at the beginning of COVID. Today’s report from Environmental Defence demonstrates, once again, that fossil fuel subsidies are also going up, while a report from the Breach tells us that the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers secured its own special committee with cabinet.

Next week, when the Prime Minister stands up in President Biden’s climate summit, we will at long last announce a target that is meaningful and holds to 1.5°C?

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (North Vancouver)
2021-04-15 15:09 [p.5684]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, we have developed a comprehensive climate plan that enables Canada to move forward with the rest of the international community to meet our international obligations. A credible climate plan requires increased ambition. The parties to Paris agreed that all would need to do more and increase ambition overtime. Countries around the world are doing that, and Canada will be playing its part in the international community and seizing the economic opportunities.

I believe that all parties in the House, with perhaps the exception of the Conservative Party, agree on the need for greater ambition, and Canada will be bringing forward a new climate target next week at the Earth summit.

The post PM must update Canada’s climate target at Biden’s Earth Summit 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.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight at adjournment proceedings to review a question and a response I received on October 4, 2017. It relates to the challenge of climate change.

My question was for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did rise and provide a response, but it was not entirely to the point of the question. It was certainly positive, and he was very generous in praising my long-time personal work on the file.

I quoted from our colleague, the late Arnold Chan, who in his last words to the House in a speech that was read by the hon. member for Ajax, who said to all of us:

It is imperative that we stop treating climate change as solely an environmental issue, but recognize it as an all-encompassing priority that we as a society and a government must confront with the utmost urgency.

When I stood to ask that question October 4, the day before we had had the release of the report of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, within the office of the Auditor General, Julie Gelfand, the commissioner, happened to have said this about how we were doing as a country and as a government to meet our climate change targets. She said:

Climate change is one of the defining issues of the 21st century. These audits show that when it comes to climate change action, Canada has a lot of work to do in order to reach the targets it has set.

As my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to minister of environment, will know, because I have made this point in the House in debate before, Canada showed leadership in 2015 in Paris. In the negotiations of the Paris accord, Canada was the first industrialized country to step up and agree with the developing world that we had to aim to hold global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5o C above what it was before the industrial revolution. These sound like trivial numbers, but in the context of survival for the low-lying island states, survival for people in the African content, and survival for the Arctic ice to be present over our north pole, seasonally, year round, and into the future, we have to hold global average temperature to 1.5o.

However, the target that Canada chose domestically was the very one that our Minister of Environment and Climate Change criticized in Paris, pointing out that the target of the previous prime minister, Stephen Harper, was really, as the minister said at the time, the floor, that we had to do better and aim higher. Certainly, the target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, put in place by the previous government in May of 2015, is entirely insufficient to meet the goals of the Paris accord.

This inconsistency is troubling, but even more troubling is the observation that we do not yet have a plan. We have the promise of a global carbon price across all of Canada, and that is a step in the right direction. However, in the context of what needs to be done, as Arnold Chan said, we need to make this an all-encompassing priority. That means we do not approve one project that increases greenhouse gas emissions, like approving pipelines full of bitumen and diluent, and then claim we can somehow meet the targets even though we have not yet put in place energy efficiency measures, gotten rid of fossil fuel subsidies, nor delivered on a comprehensive plan to avoid going above 1.5o. We need more. We need action.

Jonathan Wilkinson – Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Madam Speaker, the government very much agrees, and I personally agree, with the hon. member that this is an urgent and pressing issue that needs to be addressed in an all-encompassing way.

The Government of Canada has made taking action on climate change a very high priority. One of the first things the Minister of Environment and Climate Change did, once appointed, was to lead the Canadian delegation to the successful achievement of the Paris Agreement. Our government committed to an ambitious greenhouse gas emissions target. We then worked actively with our partners in the provinces, territories, and with indigenous leaders to develop the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. This is a detailed plan that provides a well-defined path through which we will achieve the target.

The previous Harper government set greenhouse gas reduction targets, but never developed a plan nor did the work required to meet them. That hurt Canada’s credibility at home and around the world and was unhelpful in the context of developing an international consensus. Step one for us is to show that when we set a target, we mean it. Two years after Paris, we have a lot to show for our efforts. We are introducing new legislation and regulations to ensure that a price on carbon pollution will apply across the country. The government is accelerating the phase-out of traditional coal-fired electricity units. We are establishing a clean fuel standard to reduce our emissions by incentivizing the use of lower carbon fuels, energy sources, and technologies. We are developing increasingly stringent model building codes so that all new homes will be built to a standard that will allow them to generate as much energy as they use.

We have made significant investments to support clean growth and innovation. In December, we invested more than $1 billion in the low-carbon economy fund, which will help the provinces in their fight against climate change.

We are also investing over $2.3 billion to support clean technology and innovation and to support the creation of good jobs in growing sectors of our economy. We are 100% committed to achieving our target and to working collaboratively with the international community. On December 9, 2017, we released the first annual progress report on the implementation of the pan-Canadian framework. This report highlights the strong progress that federal, provincial, and territorial governments have made in putting the pan-Canadian framework into action. We have made very significant progress, but we know we need to do more. That is part of the Paris Agreement. All countries will need to increase their level of ambition over time.

The pan-Canadian framework establishes a concrete plan to meet or even surpass our commitments under the Paris agreement. The measures we are taking today will have a real and lasting impact on the well-being and resilience of our communities and the environment.

This government will continue to work every day to turn Canada’s clean growth and climate action into new laws, regulations, actions, investments, jobs, and economic opportunities for Canadians.

Elizabeth May

Madam Speaker, here is the problem. The very same target that the hon. member just described as an ambitious target was the one that was put in place by the previous Harper government, which the hon. Minister of Environment described in Paris as the floor and that we could do better. The reality is that achieving our target—and there are large questions about whether we will—means achieving the weak target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, which does not get us to what we promised to do in Paris.

This will become glaringly apparent in October of this year when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, as it was asked to do in Paris, on the pathway to 1.5°C. That moment of ratcheting up that the hon. member mentioned, the fact that we all have to do better, and I mean all countries on earth, could be led by Canada by going into the next Conference of the Parties prepared to say that we are stepping up and that we are going to move that 2030 deadline to 2025, because Canada wants to be a leader in reality, not just rhetoric.

Jonathan Wilkinson – Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Canada has a history, under governments of all political stripes, of establishing targets and not meeting those targets because no clear and comprehensive plan was developed. This government took the very firm position that we would establish a target. We would work with our provincial and territorial counterparts and with indigenous leaders across the country to develop a detailed plan that would enable Canadians to have visibility about how we will achieve our targets. We will work very hard to ensure that those are achieved and to the extent that we can make progress more quickly, we are certainly willing to ratchet up our level of ambition.

This government cares very much about climate change and ensuring a good future for our children and grandchildren. It is something we are committed to and we look forward to working with all parties in the House, including the hon. member, to ensure we actually play our part in this important international issue.

The post We need a comprehensive plan to meet our Paris target appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“I commend the Trudeau administration for being first to implement a national carbon pricing plan, but $10/tonne is too low to be taken seriously. I remain perplexed as to why this administration refuses to update our climate targets to meet our Paris Agreement commitments,” said Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada (MP, Saanich-Gulf Islands).

“If we persist with Harper-era greenhouse gas (GHG) targets that are among the weakest in the industrialized world, we will fail to ensure Canada does its part in holding the global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. This is not a theory – it’s basic math,” Ms. May said.

Daniel Green, Deputy Leader of the Green Party of Canada, said: “At only $10/tonne, we are doomed on climate change. Canada must adopt a much more consequential price on carbon pollution to ensure a faster transition to a clean energy economy. This is not a political preference – it’s a moral imperative. Our future is at stake.”

The post Carbon pricing plan won’t fix weak climate targets appeared first on Elizabeth May.