44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 24, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question.
The bill we have introduced is about Quebec's representation in the House of Commons. It is about the fact that Quebec is at risk of losing seats or weight in the House of Commons as the Canadian population increases. We know that demographic growth in Quebec does not necessarily follow the curve, so this bill is in that spirit.
Would we be open to adding clauses dealing with first nations? I am always open to discussing things nation to nation with first nations. If there were any submissions in that regard, I would be delighted to hear them.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in looking at this particular piece of legislation, one can only ask why the Bloc has chosen to bring it forward knowing full well the government had intentions of bringing in legislation. I would attempt to answer that question by indicating that, from what I have witnessed over the years of the participation of Bloc members, their interest primarily seems to be that of playing a destructive force for Canada as a nation. I can already see some hints of that in some of the comments being made.
I say “a destructive force,” because I am a very proud Canadian. I recognize the wonders that Canada has to offer in all of its regions, and I am very proud of that. I have made reference in the past to my own ancestral heritage in the province of Quebec, to the number of generations that lived in the province of Quebec and to the expansion into the prairie provinces and so forth, as well as to how Canada as a nation is bilingual and to how important it is to recognize the province of Quebec, its uniqueness and the role it plays in society.
I know we currently have 35 incredible members of Parliament who advocate for the province of Quebec, along with other national interests, on a daily basis. In fact, earlier today we got a sense of that in the passionate delivery of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. My former boss, when he was the government House leader, would often talk with a great deal of passion about the people of Quebec and how important the French dynamic was to our country. I also go to my colleague for Mount Royal and other colleagues I have had who have spoken so eloquently about the important role Quebec plays not only here in Canada, but internationally.
I like to think that the legislation we brought in today, Bill C-14, deals with the concerns my colleagues have been raising within the government. It would ensure that the province of Quebec would never lose a seat in the future. I see that as a very strong positive, as we have made changes to the Constitution in the past and we have seen guarantees in the past.
Once again, through advocacy, we now see a very strong commitment to the number of 78 seats well into the future, and that would not limit it to 78. That would establish a floor. There are many in this chamber, including me, who believe that the province of Quebec will continue to grow. Ultimately, its population could even dictate a larger number than 78, so we are not saying it has to be 78 into the future. It would have the potential to go beyond that.
Why not recognize the value of Bill C-14? What is the need for Bill C-246, which is being proposed? The member already knows that members on the government side are committed to it, because we had the debate earlier this month, which the member even made reference to, where Liberal members from all regions of our country came forward saying that we need to ensure Quebec has that minimum number of seats going forward.
If somehow the Bloc was able to convince a majority of the people in this chamber to do what they are asking for, it would entail a constitutional change that would require the support of 50% of the population and seven of the 10 provinces in order to be approved.
I have been around for constitutional debates. I was a member of the Manitoba legislature for votes related to the Meech Lake accord and for the Charlottetown accord. I do not believe for a moment that the people of Canada, whether they are citizens of Quebec or citizens of my home province of Manitoba, want the House of Commons to be dealing with constitutional matters of this nature, which is what this bill is actually proposing. It would require approval under the 7/50 formula.
There are so many other issues that are out there today, yet the Bloc want to insist on having a constitutional change that would invoke the 7/50 formula. I would hazard a guess that, even if just the constituents of the members that are proposing this were canvassed, they might find that their constituents would not necessarily support a constitutional debate on this issue alone.
I do not say that lightly. That is what I truly believe. When I have canvassed constituents in the past, a number of years ago, on the issue of electoral reform, and the whole issue of numbers, I was very clearly told that this was not something that they want.
As a parliamentarian, we often have a sense of what the pulse of our community is like. I would challenge any member to clearly demonstrate where the political will is matched by the enthusiasm of their constituents for constitutional debates at this point in time, as that is what would be required under the legislation that is being proposed.
We could talk about issues. My friends in the Bloc often talk, for example, about health care and how important it is that the federal government be at the table when it comes to a wide variety of issues in regard to health care. The federal government is at the table. We have the Canada Health Act, which ensures that no matter where Canadians live or in whatever region, they will have a certain quality of health care delivered, based on the five fundamental principles of our Canada Health Act.
Given the pandemic, and the response we received from Canadians in regard to issues such as long-term care, the costs of medication and the issue of mental health, I believe that no matter where one lives in Canada, the debates and concerns of those issues alone would supersede and exceed the need for what is being suggested by members of the Bloc party today.
It is not to be insensitive, in recognizing the importance of the 78 seats. As I said, I personally voted in favour of that earlier this month. I know, as I said earlier, that not only the 35 members of the Liberal caucus who represent Quebec ridings, but also the entire Liberal caucus recognizes the importance of Quebec having those 78 seats, with the potential, as I explained earlier, for growth.
I really believe, and I would encourage other members of other political parties to believe, that there really is no need to even see this bill go to committee because, quite frankly, we would hope that the government's bill, Bill C-14, will make it to committee, at which point in time there will be even more opportunities for the public and stakeholders to provide direct input.
1145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join this debate as a francophone from western Canada to speak to Bill C‑246, which the Bloc Québécois member has introduced. He certainly has the right to have a debate.
During his speech I heard him say that a nation clause would be added to our Constitution. It is always interesting to see a Bloc Québécois member make an amendment to the Canadian Constitution. I know that for several decades now it has been difficult for members of that party to be convinced that Quebec, as a province, is part of a united Canada. We are certainly united.
I would like to be perfectly clear that this country was founded on two cultures and two languages: French and English. That was the topic of great debate in colonial Parliament for 20 to 30 years before our country was founded. It is that linguistic and cultural duality that our country has been trying, for more than 150 years, to put into practice in the everyday lives of our constituents.
Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada. A motion to that effect was adopted in a previous Parliament. I completely agree with that. I support that idea. I have said it many times in the House. I know that my Bloc colleagues have heard me say it. I know that they have also heard me say that Albertans form a distinct society within a united Canada.
There have been many debates with my Quebec colleagues in the House, in my party and in our caucus. When the British North America Act, which gave us our Constitution, was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 1867, section 40 stated that the Province of Quebec would have 65 seats upon the founding of our nation. Since then, and on the basis of demographics, we have slowly increased the number of seats in our Parliament to ensure that representation by population would be the guiding principle for the number of seats in our Parliament.
Representation by population was the subject of great debate by the country's responsible government. It was the great debate in the colonial Parliament before our country was founded. Representation by population in every region of our country had to be ensured. The reality of our country is that there are francophones outside Quebec. There is a linguistic duality. Acadians in Nova Scotia are part of our country. Their identity is different from that of Quebeckers, the Métis, Franco-Manitobans and Franco-Albertans. In my caucus, I have colleagues from out west, such as the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and the member for Calgary Midnapore, who speak French. They can hold a conversation in our country's other language, and they often use it.
There are three major issues with this private member's bill, three ideas that this chamber needs to seriously consider.
First of all, this matter has been debated before in a previous Parliament. Jean Rousseau, who was an NDP member of Parliament for Compton—Stanstead in 2012, moved a similar private member's bill, but it came to the same goal in a different manner. It added a different redistribution rule at the end. In that Parliament, members chose to vote against it, and it did not make it into law, obviously.
The Charlottetown accord in 1992 was rejected by Canadians. In the Charlottetown accord, one of the proposals citizens were asked to weigh in on, after politicians had debated it, was whether Quebec as a province should receive 25% of all House of Commons seats. That was rejected by the Canadian population. In fact, 58% of Quebec voters rejected that in the Charlottetown accord.
I was too young to vote, and members might be surprised by that. I was too young to vote in the Quebec referendum as well, but my parents were not, and as I remember, they did vote no in that referendum in 1995.
Another thing to consider is the Fair Representation Act of 2011 that was passed by a previous Parliament and ensured redistribution. It is part of Stephen Harper's legacy to this Parliament. He brought us back, as close as reasonably possible, to ensuring that we have representation by population.
It is part of the legacy that he tried to restore some greater representation to western Canadians, who have very large ridings. Most of us do. I represent the second-largest riding in Canada by population size. My colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has over 200,000 citizens residing in his riding, which is a huge number of people to represent. It is basically double what the average, the quotient, calls for.
The Fair Representation Act also created a rule, the representation rule, that ensured that any province that would lose a seat in a redistribution would then be made whole by having its number of seats made proportional to its demographic weight within Canada. That rule, at the time, applied to the Province of Quebec and ensured that Quebec was represented in proportion to its demographic weight within Canada. That was a new rule that was created. At the time, it added three seats, resulting in the 78 seats that the Province of Quebec enjoys today.
Lastly, I want to bring up this fact, because we Conservatives and our deputy leader, the member of Parliament for Mégantic—L'Érable, moved in this House a unanimous consent motion that was rejected. I want to read it back into the record, because it forms the position of the Conservatives.
The motion was “That the House oppose any federal electoral redistribution scenario that would cause Quebec or any other province or territory to lose one or more electoral districts in the future, and that the House call on the government to act accordingly.”
That is the foundation of the Conservative position. We believe, and I think it is a perfectly reasonable position to take, that no province should lose a seat in redistribution. It should not go backward when we are looking at this issue. There are smaller provinces that might face this situation if that was ever changed in the future.
I also recognize, as the parliamentary secretary on the Liberal benches mentioned, that the government has tabled Bill C-14 today as well, which I was combing through as we were voting to try to better understand the contents of that bill. If we look at it, we see that a majority of the content is our unanimous consent motion that was rejected by the House. That is our position: that no province in this country should lose seats in a redistribution.
We have a chamber of 338 members. This chamber used to house 308 members in our old building. I still see a lot of space where we could put more members if it was absolutely needed. I see the Speaker is looking at both sides of the House. There is, indeed, space in this House. Maybe we have to be a bit closer. We cannot do the social distancing rule. The pandemic will eventually be over, and we can do these things in a redistribution bill, so I will be looking forward to receiving a briefing and more information on exactly how Bill C-14 would work.
To return to the private member's bill, I think the mechanics of it are quite important in terms of how such a bill would function and how such a bill would work. Amending the Constitution through a private member's bill is unique, but this House has amended the Constitution. In this Parliament, we amended the Saskatchewan Act to make sure that one of the railway companies would pay its share of taxation in that particular province, so it is not unusual to be doing it in this manner. I know that other members in this House have amended the Constitution in the past, such as to make sure the Speaker's election would be done by preferential secret ballot. That was not the case over 25 years ago. This can be done in this particular situation.
Those are the three concerns I mentioned: the Charlottetown accord vote back in 1992; the history of the Fair Representation Act of 2011, which was part of Stephen Harper's legacy as our prime minister; and the unanimous consent motion that Conservatives pushed that was rejected. That forms the foundation of our position, and I hope to return to the House at some late point and have other members of our caucus join in this debate on this private member's bill.
1461 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in this discussion, this debate, this conversation, on an important bill, Bill C‑246, which has to do with Quebec's place, democracy, history and the recognition of the Quebec nation.
I do need to point out that the agreement that the NDP negotiated with the Liberal government includes the condition that Quebec's 78 seats be protected. That was one of our demands and one of the conditions we managed to secure, and I think that is a real victory.
Today, we saw a concrete result from that, in the form of a government bill introduced in response to the threat that Quebec could lose a riding and a seat. This gives substance to our efforts. We managed to secure this win for Quebec, and we are confident that it will be implemented.
That was not the only gain we secured for Quebec. We will hear a lot about Quebec this evening, but I want to talk about Quebeckers and about our work to improve their lives. We are using politics to improve people's lives and to create a fairer and more just society in which promises are kept and real action is taken.
I really must say that, for Quebeckers, dental insurance, the notion of being able to pay for dental care when one is poor and struggling—
232 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 7:29:41 p.m.
- Watch
I must interrupt the hon. member, because the hon. member for Manicouagan is rising on a point of order.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully question whether the speech by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is relevant, given the topic currently before the House.
26 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 7:29:58 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for her intervention, but the member only began his speech about two minutes ago.
I invite the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to continue his speech.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think I am totally on the topic of Quebec and what this might mean for Quebeckers. I will speak quickly. I would like to point out that, earlier, the hon. member for Drummond spoke for about eight minutes before he mentioned his bill, Bill C-246. He first outlined the entire history and digressed quite a bit. I think I am entitled to a little leeway, too.
The fact that the NDP has negotiated pharmacare, that there will be legislation in 2023 and this will help people in a concrete way, all this responds to a demand that comes largely from Quebec civil society. I am talking about the Union des consommateurs, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec and the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, which all want a universal public pharmacare plan.
When we talk about Quebec, we have to talk about its place. I think it is important to talk about Quebeckers, workers and tenants who are facing challenges, which we are trying to address as parliamentarians, with the tools we have to help them—
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 7:31:21 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry to have to interrupt the member once again, but the hon. member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent is rising on a point of order.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate both the form and content of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie's remarks. However, he has now been talking for five minutes. I know prescription drugs are important, but I do not think they vote. The subject we are talking about right now is the number of members in the House of Commons.
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 7:31:41 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for his comment. The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has been speaking for three minutes and has five minutes left. I hope he will talk about the bill we are debating and I invite him to continue his speech.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill being studied this evening. However, I get the impression that it makes my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party a little nervous when we talk about the victories secured by the NDP.
That being said, the NDP has long recognized that Quebec is a nation. The NDP already recognized that by adopting the Sherbrooke declaration, thanks to the work of people like Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair. It truly marked a major turning point in the history of our leftist, progressive movement.
The Parliament of Canada also adopted a motion recognizing that Quebec is a nation. Symbolic acknowledgements are good, but I think tangible action is better. That brings me back to the beginning of my speech, when I was talking about the concrete effects of parliamentarians' work, including the NDP's recent efforts.
What makes Quebec a nation?
It is not because that province is better or worse than the others, but because it is different from the others. We have to recognize that, and that recognition needs to come with consequences.
As my colleagues mentioned in previous speeches, I think we must always bear in mind the idea of the two founding peoples, the linguistic and cultural duality that has long kept us talking and that has fuelled debate throughout Quebec and Canadian history.
However, I must point out that this notion of two founding peoples makes me and my political party very uncomfortable, because it implies that the French, who came first, and the English, who came later, arrived on virgin land that was uninhabited.
This excludes first nations, indigenous peoples and the Inuit from the discussion. I think we must take this into consideration. This notion of two founding peoples is true but seriously incomplete, and we must consider this when discussing democracy, representation and nation-to-nation dialogue.
The basic democratic rule is simple: All citizens are equal. Everyone is equal before the law, and everyone has a vote. Through natural sovereignty, it is the people who decide who will be their leaders and whether they will oust them when they are no longer satisfied with them. This notion of the equality of citizens is the basis for the distribution of seats and representation in the House.
As the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent knows, I would love to discuss respect for every person's right to vote. If we had a proportional voting system, the government could not be elected with a minority of the votes, meaning a minority of popular and national support. This is a discussion I have had on several occasions, and I believe that proportional voting would greatly improve the quality of our democratic life.
Elections Canada decides on the riding boundaries and distribution of seats, but there are many exceptions. In fact, we have a system that functions by exception. We could almost say that the exception is the norm.
Three major clauses govern how seats are distributed in the federation. First is the senatorial clause, which states that no province can have fewer MPs than it has senators, regardless of its demographic weight and the number of voters in the ridings.
Next is the territorial clause. Obviously the large expanses of Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut do not necessarily have the critical mass to justify a riding and an MP. However, we all recognize that Nunavut absolutely has to be represented and that it makes sense to have these territorial clauses, resulting in these three ridings.
Last is the grandfather clause, which states that a province cannot have fewer MPs than it had before. The provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland all negotiated a certain number of seats upon entering Confederation. That has real-life consequences.
If we look at the three territories and 10 provinces, that means seven provinces are overrepresented thanks to different standards or special clauses, in addition to the three territories.
I think it is worth considering whether the Quebec nation could also benefit from a special clause of its own, given that we have all recognized Quebec as a nation. We can therefore say that what is good for others can also be applied to Quebec the exact same way and that this would be a way to recognize the Quebec nation. It may not be the best or only way, but it already came up in past talks, so we are not reinventing the wheel.
As my colleague from Drummond pointed out, this was included in the Charlottetown accord. It was already part of the negotiations to convince Quebec to ratify the Constitution after the lamentable and unpleasant events of 1982. The Charlottetown accord proposed setting the minimum at 25% for Quebec. This was agreed to by the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party of Quebec and, at the time, by the federal NDP, which also supported the Charlottetown accord.
I think this is a principle that is worth discussing and studying in committee so that we can debate Quebec's place in the Canadian federation and in our democratic process.
860 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my father always told me that history is extremely important. My colleague talked about history when he talked about the current situation, because history helps us understand where we are and where we are going. I too will share a bit of historical background, with all due respect to the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
In his 1840 report, Lord Durham said that the francophone people had no future, no culture and no history. That was not a very good start. In 1840, after the Patriotes rebellion, this person was telling us that the salvation of francophones lay in assimilation. By reading what happened next, we see this was the moment that the tragic destiny of Quebec and francophones in Canada was decided.
From 1840 to 1867, there was a Parliament representing eastern Canada, in other words Quebec, and western Canada, meaning Ontario. The catch was that even though Quebec had a larger population, eastern Canada and western Canada got the same number of members. Even though there were more Quebeckers, they did not get more members, but no one took offence to that.
After a while, it became clear that the status of francophones in North America was diminishing because of the influx of immigrants. They became a minority. In 1867, it was announced that representation would henceforth be proportional. That year, the first Parliament opened, but instead of Quebec having 50% of the seats, it dropped to 36%, even though it had had a much larger population for quite some time.
That was the beginning, or rather the continuation, of the decline. To get us to lower our guard, they told us that it was an agreement between two founding peoples, an agreement that would later be broken. They gave us 50% of the seats at first to lull us into a false sense of security.
Yes, there are francophones in the rest of Canada, but they are merely surviving, not thriving. Despite their resilience and their daily struggle to ensure their language reaches their schools, they will never be able to ensure their continued survival. They will decline across Canada.
Just look at the situation today in Manitoba, which is supposed to be a bilingual province. In New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the rest of Canada, in Ontario, francophones will literally disappear. The only thing stopping francophones outside Quebec from losing the ability to utter the words of Félix Leclerc, to keep speaking the language we hold dear, is their extraordinary courage. It will take a lot of courage.
You are one of the courageous ones, Mr. Speaker. You know what I am talking about.
Quebec was saddled with minority status with respect to economic decisions and everything else until the end of the 1950s. Two things saved Quebec.
The first was the cradle. Quebeckers made babies. They set a world record for baby-making, one for every fence post. We survived because of sheer numbers.
The second came in 1960 with the creation of a Quebec state that finally protected us. It was the Quebec state that allowed us to strengthen the position of the French language in Quebec, which had an impact on the rest of Canada and even Louisiana. Zachary Richard would agree, it is a fact. Quebec, with the Quebec state, protects us. That is a fact.
After being one of the founding peoples, we were confined to the rank of a province, a province like any other. In federal-provincial conferences, we became one of ten in 1949, going from one for one to one for ten. Then multiculturalism was introduced in 1982, which put us on a par with all other cultures. I like other cultures, but the Quebec nation is here, it is present, and it must maintain its place because it deserves to survive.
I will not go into the details of all the numbers, but we are at 23% representation in Parliament. Do people see what the problem is with the Parliament of Canada?
We keep repeating that this Parliament is eroding the power of our legislature. This is a fundamental problem. When we say that Ottawa must not interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions, it is because the Government of Quebec protects us best and knows us best. It was not the Quebec government that said the London attack was caused by Bill 21, but the Prime Minister of Canada. It was not the Premier of Quebec who said that.
The Prime Minister of Canada is not the one protecting us. It is the federal government that has now decided to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. British Columbia's francophones, who demanded that education be of the same quality as that of anglophones, won their case before the Federal Court of Appeal, but this Liberal government wants to reverse the court's decisions.
People in the House are saying that Quebec is a nation. This Parliament even agreed with us and adopted a motion saying that Quebec is a nation with French as the common language. However, those words need to be backed up by action.
We put to the vote a two-part motion seeking to ensure that Quebec does not lose a seat in the House of Commons, and that motion was adopted by the majority. The government understood and acknowledged this with its Bill C‑14. However, what about the second part of the motion?
When we vote on a motion, we vote on the entire motion. The second part of the motion said that Quebec's political weight must not be diminished. It does not take a Ph.D. in math to understand that if we have 78 seats out of a total of 338, when that total eventually goes up to 343, 350, 400 or 500 members, our political power will be diminished. I explained this to my golden retriever and he understood. The government does not seem to understand. Seriously?
What we are asking for is that we use a ratio expressed as a percentage. It is obvious if we want to avoid this decline. It is just that simple. Why are we asking for 25%? It is because that is what was negotiated in the Charlottetown accord. That is where we got it from.
Can this be done without reopening Canada's Constitution? I know that reopening the Constitution is about as easy as eating an apple through a tennis racket. I know that, but we do not need to do it. We can do it in the House with legislative tools. That is where we stand today: We have to use percentages to avoid this slow but steady decline that is undermining our people.
I will quote Claude Péloquin, who said, “Aren't you tired of dying, you idiots?” Sometimes, I think we are dying. Unfortunately, we do not even know it. We are here because half of our taxes are administered by this Parliament, and as long as we are in Canada, we must defend Quebec.
Our dream is not to account for 25% of this Parliament, but 100% of the parliament of our future country.
1204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 7:48:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the recent IPCC report is a dire warning about the climate crisis and the consequences of empty Liberal promises. The UN Secretary General called the report an “atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership”.
Canadians have already been dealing with the devastating impacts of the climate crisis. It is threatening everything that we value. The report warns that half of the global population lives in areas considered highly vulnerable to the changing climate. Millions of people are already facing floods and water shortages. There are mass die-offs of species. Key ecosystems are losing their ability to act as carbon sinks. We know that racialized communities, indigenous communities and marginalized communities are disproportionately impacted. It is one of the reasons we need an office of environmental justice.
Climate breakdown is rapidly accelerating and many climate impacts will be more severe than previously predicted. The brief window to ensure a livable future is rapidly closing. Despite years of warnings from experts, the Prime Minister is not showing the climate leadership that people in Canada are looking for. This report is a call to stop making empty promises. We must take urgent action now.
Instead of acting with the urgency that is needed, the Liberals continue to subsidize the largest polluters in the oil and gas industry. They have purchased a pipeline, and they are delaying climate goals at the peril of Canadians and their communities. Canada has missed every single climate target, and we have the worst record on climate of any G7 country.
The Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, passed in the last Parliament, requires that the government publish an emissions reduction plan to show how it plans to meet its 2030 target of a 40% to 45% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. That this is an inadequate target when the IPCC report says that we need to cut our emissions by at least 50%, and we should be going farther for our fair share.
That plan is due next week, and this week the net-zero advisory body published its first round of advice on what the government should include in that plan. That body has told the government to set and implement legally binding oil and gas sector emissions targets without delay, but the government still has not decided what its promised oil and gas emissions cap will be. The net-zero advisory body has also told the government that carbon removals and offsets should only be used as a last resort.
The IPCC also points to the uncertainty in the future deployment of carbon capture and storage, and cautions against reliance on this technology, but the government is pushing forward with a tax credit for carbon capture and utilization storage. This is another subsidy to the oil and gas companies at a time when they are making record profits and Canadians are being gouged at the pump. Canadians are struggling to pay for food, medication and housing. If carbon capture and utilization storage is critical to these companies' plans, and they are making record profits, then there is no reason that they cannot pay for these investments themselves.
The Liberals have promised to meet Canada's G20 commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies two years early by 2023, but Environment and Climate Change Canada recently confirmed that it does not have a concrete definition for what an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy is or a complete list of the subsidies to review. How do they expect Canadians to trust that they are on track to end inefficient fossil fuel subsidies when they cannot even define what it is that they are phasing out? Canada should be using internationally agreed upon definitions of fossil fuel subsidies that align with our climate commitments to eliminate all fossil fuel subsidies by the end of 2022 and ensure that we are in line with keeping global warming—
658 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 7:53:04 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 7:53:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Victoria that the recent IPCC report is a stark reminder of the impacts of climate change and that Canada needs to move faster and go deeper on its decarbonization efforts.
In 2016, we worked with provinces and territories and sought input from indigenous peoples to develop and adopt the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. Unlike many of our peer countries, in 2016, Canada's emissions were on a steady upward climb before the pan-Canadian framework was adopted. National emissions were projected to continue to increase to about 12% above 2005 levels by 2030. The measures adopted in the pan-Canadian framework reversed that trajectory, and we are projected to reduce national emissions to 19% below 2005 levels by 2030. This represents the single largest projected drop in emissions in Canadian history.
In the pan-Canadian framework, the government committed to meet and exceed Canada's previous 2030 goal. The government delivered on that commitment in December 2020 through Canada's strengthened climate plan: “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy”. The measures in that plan were projected to reduce emissions by at least 31% below 2005 levels. In mid-2021, the government announced Canada's enhanced greenhouse gas emissions target of a 40% to 45% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030.
Science has indicated that countries, including Canada, need to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. We listened. In 2021, we worked across party lines to pass the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, to enshrine Canada's commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, to establish Canada's 2030 emissions target at 40% to 45% below 2005 levels as the first key milestone for this path, and to ensure a transparent and accountable process in meeting our climate objectives. The first requirement under the act, the 2030 emissions reduction plan, will be established by March 29 of this year, as the hon. member mentioned.
Meeting our climate objective requires close collaboration with partners. The year ahead of us will be an eventful one with the release of the 2030 emissions reduction plan, Canada's first national adaptation strategy, and continued implementation of initiatives such as the strategic innovative fund, the net-zero accelerator and the Canada greener homes grant. We are also working on numerous additional measures. We have already launched consultations on regulating 100% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035, achieving net-zero electricity by 2035 and regulating landfill and oil and gas methane. We have also launched initial consultations on oil and gas caps, and we will release a discussion paper this spring and invite Canadians to share their views on the design of the cap.
At the same time, our government is working to ensure that the oil and gas sector makes a meaningful contribution towards Canada's climate targets. At COP26, Canada announced it would take additional steps to significantly reduce GHG emissions from the oil and gas sector by setting emissions caps.
I have run out of time, but I am happy to answer the next question from the hon. member.
524 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 7:57:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the IPCC is clear: All levels of government have only a narrow window to implement key climate change mitigation and adaptation measures to secure a livable future. However, while Canadians are struggling with the cost of living, the government continues to give handouts to oil and gas companies that are making record profits.
Canada is one of the biggest funders of the oil and gas sector in the G20, and Export Development Canada is the worst offender. Under this Prime Minister, Canada has given more than 14 times the financial support to fossil fuels than it has to renewables. We need to make sure that EDC financing is in line with Canada's commitments to hold global warming to 1.5°C.
Will the minister and the parliamentary secretary commit to telling Export Development Canada to clean up its act and stop financing fossil fuels?
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 7:58:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments.
I would remind the member, and all those who are listening, that in addition to taking action to reduce emissions, we also recognize that we must be prepared for the climate risks that are now upon us, as historical trends are no longer our climate normal. That is why, this year, we will release a national adaptation strategy. Building on our strong foundations, the strategy will bring together different levels of government, indigenous groups, the private sector, civil society and all of us in Canada to develop a common blueprint for action.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 7:58:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to stand in this place to address the important issues facing my constituents, Albertans and all Canadians.
I stand today to talk about the Senate, and specifically the question that I asked back in December related to the Senate election that the Province of Alberta held last October. This is something that is unique to Alberta admittedly, but I appreciate the opportunity to talk a bit more about it here today.
On October 18, Albertans made a choice. They elected three, what we consider, senators in waiting. They are, by name, Pam Davidson, Erika Barootes and Mykhailo Martyniouk. Significant precedent suggests that Albertans are able to make that choice. However, in the response given by the minister who responded this past December, I was once again incredibly disappointed by the ignorance, arrogance and how out of touch the Liberals are when it comes to the issues that western Canada faces.
The response basically said that the Liberals do it better, that they have all the answers, that they blame Stephen Harper for all the problems our country faces and, therefore, it is actually the Conservatives' fault. That is not acceptable. My constituents share often how frustrated they are with the status of the federation. They share often how they feel like Canada has failed Albertans. They share often how they feel there is little our country can offer them and that it may not even be worth our federation sticking together.
I am a proud Canadian. I am also a proud Albertan. I find it a travesty that there are those, and a growing number under the leadership of the current Liberal government and Prime Minister, now an NDP-Liberal coalition, who have made it so that more Albertans all the time are deciding that they would be more willing to give up on our country than fight for it.
These are serious issues that, unfortunately, the Liberals seem to dismiss, not only issues like appointing democratically elected senators to Canada's upper chamber in our bicameral legislature known as the Senate, but issues each and every day, whether it be the energy industry, the Ottawa knows best mentality or the imposition of the carbon tax on Albertans when Albertans made it very clear they did not want it. The list goes on and on. There is such a host of challenges that the province of Alberta faces, there are even more people today. In fact, since the announcement Monday evening where the NDP-Liberal socialist eco-left coalition was announced, I have heard from many more constituents who are asking, “What is the point in fighting?”
When it comes to the specific question I asked back in December, Albertans deserve this, Albertans need this and, for the sake of our country, Alberta needs to be respected. I would simply ask the minister this. Will he take a moment and recommend to the Liberal Prime Minister to put his partisanship aside and understand that Alberta has a unique status within our federation and appoint to the vacant seat for Alberta in the Senate one of Canada's democratically elected senators?
533 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
