44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 4, 2022 11:00AM
- Apr/4/22 1:54:51 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, released a report this morning at 11 a.m. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about it.
For example, the report states that projected carbon dioxide emissions from existing and currently planned fossil fuel infrastructure exceed the total emissions that would limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. That is a big deal.
Furthermore, the IPCC calculates that, by 2050, the equivalent of $1 trillion to $4 trillion U.S. in fossil fuels must be left in the ground to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 2:28:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today's IPCC report tells us we are racing toward a climate disaster. Worse still, we know what needs to be done and we have the tools, but the government is failing to act. There is no time left to delay, but the Liberals' emission reduction plan is far from what is needed. They continue to hand out billions of dollars to big oil and gas instead of scaling up renewables and supports for workers.
The world's top scientists are clear: It is now or never. Why is the government acting like there is no emergency?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 2:29:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in fact, we are very seized with the emergency, which is why we presented the most ambitious, transparent and solid climate change plan we have ever seen in this country.
Do not take it from me. Take it from Greenpeace. Take it from Équiterre. Take it from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Take it from Andrew Weaver—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 2:30:13 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I want to be able to hear the minister's answer.
The hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 2:30:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that Andrew Weaver, an IPCC scientist and ex-leader of the B.C. Green Party, said that with the plan we tabled last week, Canada reclaims its status as an international leader on climate change. Do not take it from me; take it from him.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 2:54:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, according to this morning's IPCC report, we have three years to save the planet. Our greenhouse gas emissions must peak within the next three years and then fall by 48% by 2030.
The Minister of Environment and Climate Change tabled a plan last week, but despite his promises to the contrary, it contains no targets for peak fossil fuel production or emissions.
We have three years to act, but the minister's plan is holding us back. Given the urgency of the situation, will the minister go back to the drawing board?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 2:56:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that our plan, which is based on projections from the Canada Energy Regulator, provides for increased production in Canada, but we are addressing greenhouse gas emissions.
Sabaa Khan, director general for Quebec and Atlantic Canada at the David Suzuki Foundation, said, “This plan has a better chance of success than any of Canada's previous climate plans”.
Marc-André Viau from Équiterre said, “We welcome the emissions reduction plan because this is the first time that we have such a detailed strategy”.
Diego Creimer from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Quebec chapter, said, “It was double or nothing, and the minister went for it. Ottawa has just invested heavily in our best ally: nature.”
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 2:58:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, climate change is the greatest long-term threat to our country. It is an existential threat, yet we know that a market mechanism, and an important mechanism, is carbon capture, use and storage. Important investments were made in budget 2021.
We have put on the floor of the House the emissions reductions plan. It is an ambitious plan. It is an important plan, and we will continue to work with industry and all stakeholders to make sure that we get to where we need to be to save the planet and have good, long-paying jobs across the country.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 2:58:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the International Energy Agency has stated that carbon capture, utilization and storage is the most near-term available technology to mitigate climate change. Deployment will amount to approximately 7% of the world’s GHG reduction targets. Canada was at the forefront of developing carbon capture. Billions of dollars have been spent by industry and governments to advance the technology, making it a Canadian technology champion.
Will the government commit to ensuring that this environmental leadership remains in Canada, or will we see more inaction that will move more jobs to the United States?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 2:59:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to fight climate change, we need all available technologies, and that is exactly what our approach has been so far. In budget 2021, we committed to put in place a tax incentive for carbon capture and storage, which is in fact featured in today's IPCC report as a technology we absolutely need to tackle climate change.
We should not put all our eggs in that basket. It is part of our plan. Five per cent of our plan rests on carbon capture and storage, but we need to invest in transit. We need to invest in solar, in wind and in electrification. By doing all these things, we will get to our target.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 3:01:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister announced the Government of Canada's plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030.
Canadian farmers are on the front lines of climate change, and their efforts are essential to meeting Canada's climate targets.
To that end, the plan allocates more than $1 billion to the agriculture sector. Could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food explain to the House how the agriculture sector will benefit from this new plan?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 3:59:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when we talk about the carbon tax as a way to disincentivize people from using necessities for them such as their vehicles or heating their homes, we think that is an ineffective way to address climate change. One of the ways that we can address climate change is through technology, making sure that we are making investments in things like SMRs and vSMRs, making sure that we are collaborating with those in our agricultural sector, who are leaders and environmental stewards. That is incredibly important.
It is also very important that we collaborate on ways to support individual families, make sure that those supports are means tested and make sure they are able to support their families so they do not have to make those terrible choices, as I mentioned before, between heating and eating.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 5:07:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the first question is perhaps the easiest. The way things are going with the current government and its proposals, there will definitely still be a flourishing oil industry in Canada.
However, this is not the right objective to set if we want a greener, fairer and more equitable future. We hope that this industry can be transitioned without necessarily causing job losses, because that is not what we want. It needs to be transitioned for a better future and for a more resilient economy that can respond to the climate crisis.
Another question from my hon. colleague was, I think, about products that we are being asked to produce. My colleague asked whether they have a future in the context of the climate crisis. I think that all products, no matter where they come from, should be designed to create a greener and fairer economy. We need to do this now. It is urgent, as the IPCC report points out.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 5:08:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree, especially regarding the issues of climate change. We know that the impacts are being felt profoundly. I am from British Columbia, and last year we saw a heat dome that took many lives because we simply do not have the infrastructure we need to deal with that kind of heat. We saw extreme flooding and forest fires and lost whole communities. Farmers lost everything. We know the impacts of climate change are real, but they are also extremely expensive, and I am very concerned because we do not see the government taking the next steps it needs to take to address this issue in a serious way.
I am wondering if the member could talk about what she is seeing and how urgent and expensive climate change is.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 5:09:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this easy question. Having worked on the report published by the Ouranos group several years ago, which talked about the cost of climate change in Quebec, I would say that climate change is indeed very costly for society.
There are certainly health costs associated with climate change, and some diseases are a direct result. Zoonotic diseases come to mind. There are also infrastructure-related costs. We need only think of flooding, erosion and permafrost.
The government cannot see this, probably because its discount rate is too high. It is surely not a social discount rate, so it must be a private discount rate. By doing a cost-benefit analysis, the government would see that climate change is very expensive and that tackling it would be the better solution, both economically and environmentally.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 7:04:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the more time I spend here, the more time I hear the word “file”. There is the mental health file, the housing file, the disabilities file, the climate file. I cannot stand it, because the word “file” reduces deep systemic injustices into political speak. The fact is that climate is not a file. It is about whether we choose to continue living on a habitable planet.
Bill McKibben, who has been writing and organizing around the climate crisis since the eighties, would say, “Winning slowly is the same as losing.” This morning we had a reminder of that when climate scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued their latest warning. The co-chair's report says, “It's now or never”. If we want to limit global warming to 1.5° C, we must decrease and plateau emissions at the latest by 2025.
The scientists who wrote this 2,900-page report went on to say that they have a high confidence that unless countries around the world step up their efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the planet will be on average 2.4° to 3.5° C warmer by the end of the century, sailing past the target of increase by a maximum 1.5° C.
The UN Secretary-General went on to say:
We are on a pathway to global warming of more than double the 1.5-degree limit agreed in Paris. Some government and business leaders are saying one thing—but doing another.
Simply put, they're lying. And the results will be catastrophic.
Back at home, what do we have? We have a so-called emissions reduction plan that tells Canadians a fairy tale that somehow we will keep increasing oil and gas production and give oil and gas $50 billion in a new subsidy for carbon capture and storage, a completely unproven technology, and the carbon intensity of the oil will magically disappear.
What is actually true? One recent study from the Netherlands found that the majority of carbon capture technology they looked at, 32 out of 40, actually emitted more carbon than they captured. More recently, over 400 academics and climate scientists and experts around the country shared that “carbon capture is a false climate solution.”
Even if we take the government at face value that there is $9.1 billion in new investments in its plan—and to be clear, there are some constructive investments in that plan—the unfortunate truth is that those investments are overshadowed, not only by that $50 billion I just mentioned but also by the $21.4 billion on the Trans Mountain pipeline, the cost of which has ballooned, which intends on increasing oil from 300,000 barrels to 890,000 barrels a day. As well, the government is ambiguous on its decision with respect to Bay du Nord, an oil drilling project off the coast of Newfoundland that would not even begin until 2028 but would allow drilling for another billion barrels of oil. All of this means that the government is gambling with our children's future.
I am not interested in hearing what others have to say about the plan; the only bar that matters is that of climate science. I wonder, knowing the hard work that parliamentary secretary is putting in and her good intentions, whether she can tell us if she—
582 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 7:08:07 p.m.
- Watch
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
