SoVote

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/5/22 11:45:30 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kings—Hants for his speech. He is a member that I have a great amount of respect for. That being said, when the member mentioned a tip of the cap to carbon capture and storage, we need to be honest: If we want even a 50% chance of staying below 1.5°C and ensuring a livable planet, we need to do our fair share. That means, as scientists have told us, that we need to leave 86% of Canada's proven fossil fuel reserves unextracted. To do so means investing in workers. I wonder if the member would be open to commenting on the importance of the implications of taking that same $7.1 billion, in a new subsidy, and instead investing that in workers and a just transition for them.

141 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 65 - May/5/22

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/5/22 1:46:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments with respect to transit. I would encourage her to advocate for more. There is very little on ground transportation in this budget. My question is with respect to reducing poverty, knowing that 40% of those living in poverty across the country are Canadians with disabilities. As she may know, over 100 members in this place have already called out the need for the government to reintroduce substantial legislation for the Canada disability benefit. Could she comment on the importance of moving forward with this guaranteed income for Canadians with disabilities?

98 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 65 - May/5/22

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/5/22 6:30:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to come back to my question for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change from a few weeks ago on Bay du Nord. Let me start by sharing the reality of where we are. If we want at least a 50% chance of staying below 1.5°C, which scientists have shared is what is required for just a chance at a livable future, and if Canada were to do its fair share of what we know remains for the global carbon budget, 86% of Canada's proven fossil fuel reserves need to remain unextracted. Fast forward to April 4, when the most recent climate report came out, and scientists made clear it was now or never if we wanted to limit warming to 1.5°C. It was called an “atlas of human suffering” and a “damning indictment of failed climate leadership”. The chair said half measures were no longer an option. The UN Secretary-General described the report. These are his words. He said: Climate activists are sometimes depicted as dangerous radicals, but the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels. Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness. Some government and business leaders are saying one thing, but doing another. Simply put, they are lying. And the results will be catastrophic. Just a few days later, the government had its first big climate credibility test: whether to approve Bay du Nord. It is a deepwater oil drilling project 500 kilometres off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, 1,200 metres below the surface. We expect that it has up to one billion barrels of oil. Combusting that oil is equivalent to 100 coal-fired power plants for a year, and production would not even start until 2028. I was told by the minister in our previous conversation that there is this net-zero condition. It will be net-zero by 2050. What good is that if we have already burned all the oil by then? The added trick that is often not mentioned is that it is expected that much of this oil would be exported. Of course, this is a global carbon budget. When we do that, it may not show up in our domestic target, which even on its own is not sufficient to do our fair share, but it has the added illusion of not affecting our emissions, when in fact it is directly contributing to the global climate crisis that we are in. No one is saying, myself included, that we need to shut down oil and gas industries tomorrow and turn off the taps, but what we do need is an immediate investment in the economy of the future: an investment in workers. Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, we know has some of the highest wind energy potential in North America, so why are we not investing in those workers today? Why are we not investing in their future and their retraining? We know that this new fossil fuel infrastructure that has been proposed is what has been described as moral and economic madness. Let me remind the parliamentary secretary in closing that Canadians expect more. Last fall, a full 66% of Canadians polled shared that they expected more ambitious climate action. My question tonight is this. Why is the government continuing to approve projects like Baie du Nord, knowing full well the majority of Canadians expect so much better?

590 words

Context: House Hansard - 65 - May/5/22

Mr. Mike Morrice

May/5/22 6:38:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while I respect the parliamentary secretary, if approving the Baie du Nord project is what accountability looks like in Canada's climate policy, then we have a problem. Yes, much of what he said is true, and he did not mention Baie du Nord in his response. There is $9.1 billion in the emissions reduction plan, and I am cheering that on, but at the same time, there is $7.1 billion between now and 2030 in a new fossil fuels subsidy, a tax credit for carbon capture and storage, which again only further locks us into going in the wrong direction. When we talk about Baie du Nord, we see why this talk of a cap on emissions is insufficient. We can cap emissions all we want, but if we are not going to look at production, if we are not going to be honest about the reality of the need to leave some reserves in the ground for a livable planet for our children, nothing else really matters.

173 words