44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 8, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/8/23 10:07:06 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition that was spearheaded by the incredible team at Ecojustice, an organization that continues to show amazing leadership in our collective fight to protect the planet.
The petitioners calls on the government to implement a total ban on thermal coal exports. They draw attention to the fact that coal power plants produce more greenhouse gases and subsequent warming than any other single source, yet the Liberals continue to allow Canada to mine and export thermal coal to be burned overseas. They note that during the last election, the Liberals promised to phase out thermal coal exports by no later than 2030. It is now two years later and nothing has been done to support this commitment. Emissions do not know borders, and coal burned anywhere in the world contributes to a climate crisis that affects us all.
The petitioners are calling on the government to show real climate leadership and ban thermal coal exports.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 10:08:47 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is timely that I table this petition on behalf of youth from Qualicum Beach in my riding. They cite that children born in 2020 will face, on average, two to seven times more extreme weather events than their grandparents. Clearly, we are on the higher end of that. In a 2021 report in The Lancet, 83% of children worldwide reported that they think people have failed to take care of the planet. Those most affected by climate change are the youngest generation, as they will live to see the worst effects of this crisis.
Youth discussion has proven crucial to successful climate action and policy creation. However, dozens of climate-related decisions are made without input from youth. Statistics around the world show that if youth were making these decisions, the representation in Parliament outcome would be different. Children under 18 are not legally allowed to vote and are therefore without legal voice or action.
They are calling on the Government of Canada to require all members of Parliament, regardless of party line, to consult with secondary or elementary school leadership, a student council or an environmental youth group in their ridings before Parliament holds the second reading of any bill that directly affects Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. The purpose of the consultation will be to listen to the viewpoints of those directly affected by the specified bill who do not already have representation in Parliament.
240 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 10:26:10 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the reality is one of investments in the form of tax credits or assistance for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the process of extracting petroleum resources.
The only petroleum resources that are safe to develop are biofuels and biogas. They exist, but that is not what we are talking about.
The suggested approach is not really useful. If the industry were able to lower its emissions per barrel, it would only produce more barrels. Our money would then be used solely to maintain the level of greenhouse gas emissions. We need to go a step further and transition away from oil.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 11:06:01 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have often heard the Minister of Environment boast in the House about 2021, saying that emissions reached record-setting lows that year. This is hardly surprising, considering there was a pandemic going on. Although he denied it, I remember that the vast majority of Quebeckers had to comply with a curfew for half the year, which says a lot about the strict lockdown in effect at the time. Needless to say, planes were grounded, and teleworking meant that cars stayed in the garage.
What did not increase during that lockdown year, but that certainly made up for it in the inflationary year of 2022, were oil company profits. What did not decrease were the billions of dollars that Ottawa supplied to oil companies.
Given that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has shown that 80% of oil must remain where it is, underground, can the Minister of Environment promise us that there will be no more new oil development projects?
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 11:07:05 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
First, I would like to remind him that, in 2021, Canada's economic growth was the strongest in the G7, at 5%. Economic growth in Canada leads to increased greenhouse gas emissions.
Second, despite the global pandemic, we had the best record of any G7 country of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The pandemic affected not just Canada, but the entire world. As I said in my speech, we eliminated international fossil fuel subsidies last year, and we will eliminate domestic subsidies this year, in 2023. That is two years earlier than all our G20 partners.
Third, I think that my colleague and the Bloc Québécois would be the first to object if the federal government encroached on provincial jurisdiction. The use of natural resources is a provincial jurisdiction. Where we can make a difference is on pollution, and that is exactly what we are doing.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 12:00:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the Liberal government giving billions of dollars to oil companies that have made huge profits, record profits, in fact.
We must force the government to invest more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We must invest more money to encourage clean energy and invest in businesses that are tackling the climate crisis. We must not give money to oil companies that are making record profits. We must force the government to do what is necessary.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 12:11:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to have these conversations, we need to find common ground and we need to deal in facts. For example, I find common ground with NDP members when they talk about not subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. I think perhaps we need to more aggressively implement those reductions. I also think we have to accept the facts, and some of the facts the NDP is presenting are slightly misleading. The reality is that GHG emissions in Canada went down by 9% between 2019 and 2021. That is second best in the G7. It also happened, and this is very important, while our economy continued to grow, as we may get comments that there was a pandemic at that time.
I am wondering if the member would like to reflect on the fact that we are making serious moves forward. Our GHG emissions have gone down, and we have been second best in the G7 over the last two years despite our economic growth.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 12:12:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is pretty funny to hear the Liberals tell us that greenhouse gas emissions went down in 2020-21. Something happened during that time: the COVID-19 pandemic. The economy slowed down to roughly zero. Of course greenhouse gas emissions went down. There was no economic activity.
Now that the pandemic is over and economic activity has resumed, greenhouse gas emissions have increased. That is what needs to be said, contrary to what my Liberal colleague is saying.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 12:15:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague. Like him, we recognize that climate change is real and that action is needed. Humans played a role in creating climate change, and so we have a role to play in turning the situation around. Everyone agrees that we need to reduce pollution. The path that these people are taking is different from ours. I respect it, but it is different.
The government has been in power for eight years, and it wants to increase the carbon tax. We have to wonder whether this will produce any real results. According to an analysis by UN scientists at COP27, Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Why continue down this path that does not take us to the top, but instead places Canada among those countries at the bottom?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 12:16:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
It is quite true that Canada, under the Liberals, ranks 58th out of 63 countries when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I agree with him that this is an admission of failure.
However, we cannot blame this solely on the carbon tax or the price on pollution. It is a good tool, a market-based tool, that provides incentives to pollute less. When it is the only tool we have and we do things that are inconsistent and contradictory, we end up with a failure and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is that I still do not see what the Conservative Party's plan is for achieving better results.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 1:13:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is important to transition those that are heavy emitters, but in my speech I also spoke about a company in my riding that, through research and development and by starting a lithium battery within its garage, is now able to make clear reductions to our emissions through clean tech. We invested $4.8 million in that company to ensure that it is able to thrive and provide support to other companies that rely on biodiesel or heavy fuels. To make sure that the transition piece is happening, we are definitely investing in those companies.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 1:14:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I love that the member opposite feels he needs to draw a short-term transactional type of question here. What I had said in my speech—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Ms. Iqra Khalid: I can hear the member speaking over me as I am trying to answer his question. It is that we need to continue. This is not a flip of a switch, and everything is fixed with one measure. It is, yes, a price on pollution; yes, it is to get to net-zero emissions; yes, it is to invest in clean technology and to make sure there is a transition to clean technology in our country. It is not partisan politics.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 1:32:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. What he said was really touching.
I will approach the issue from a different perspective. One of my daughters is in Spain right now. The images she is seeing from the sky above my home in Lac‑des‑Écorces worry her, and her sister is also very worried. My daughters are 16 and 18 years old. I do not know what to say to them about their climate anxiety.
One of the reasons that prompted me to run in the campaign for Laurentides—Labelle in 2019 was the fight against climate change, the energy transition, and the capacity, as an elected representative, to influence the course of history. Today, I feel powerless because the Liberal government refuses to meaningfully fight climate change. The Liberal government will not address the real energy transition head-on.
I am very embarrassed to tell my daughters, but also the residents of Laurentides—Labelle, that the federal government, frankly, is not acting. Some say that the Prime Minister is pro-environment, but let us speak the truth. The Prime Minister, the government and the Liberal Party are greenwashing. Greenwashing is when a company or organization gives itself the image of being environmentally responsible. The word fits the government like a glove. Since 2015, the Prime Minister and his government have been boasting to us how green a government they will be, how important the environment is and how they will always be ready to defend the environment. The future will determine if there is any truth to that. They even appointed a well-known environmentalist to the position of Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Let us also note the modified title. This is called greenwashing.
At the same time, the government wants to complete the Trans Mountain pipeline; go figure. They make big announcements about this as they do for the battery plants. I wonder why. Are they afraid of taking responsibility for their actions? As we know, it is all a matter of public relations and image. They buy the perception of being green and eco-friendly, but it is not true.
The Liberal government's environmental record is very poor. Since 1990, Canada has increased its greenhouse gas emissions by 17.75%, excluding Quebec. If we exclude Quebec, it is because Quebec has decreased its greenhouse gas emissions by 8.1%. I say bravo. Will someone listen to us and act? Once again, as is often he case, Quebec is the example to follow.
Quebec is the example to follow because Quebec is alone in North America in prohibiting oil and gas exploration and production on its territory and is a member of an international coalition of jurisdictions committed to progressively reducing oil and gas production. I say bravo.
We need to start an energy transition. The first step in starting the energy transition is to stop investing in the energy of the past. It is imperative that we take Quebec's example and end all new investment in oil and gas exploration and production throughout Canada. It starts here.
However, that is not the direction that the Prime Minister is taking. Investments in oil and natural gas production will reach $40 billion this year, 11% more than during the pandemic.
Honestly, I cannot believe it. I would like to have an answer and know what people think of that. It is unacceptable.
We know that this will not work. We know it so well that we felt it a bit less this morning. Since Monday, the skies of Ottawa and Gatineau have been shrouded. Air quality in the Ottawa-Gatineau area is among the worst. The forest fires are hundreds of kilometres away, however. Headaches, difficulty breathing, rashes and dry eyes are mild symptoms. It is safe to say that, even though the fires are far away, their impact is being felt.
I am thinking about the people in Sept‑Îles, Val‑d'Or or La Tuque, who have to live with this smoke that is harmful to their health. If we needed something to demonstrate that climate change will impact our health, the current situation is, unfortunately, a prime example. Some will say that forest fires are part of the boreal forest life cycle. That is true, but the difference is that this is not normal. It is June 8, not July 22, and there are already hundreds of active fires across Quebec. There is no doubt, especially from a scientific point of view, that climate change is having an impact on the size and scope of forest fires in Quebec and Canada. Climate change will worsen the severity and frequency of these fires. Dry forests are fuel. It is like putting gas on a fire.
I do not even want to imagine it, but studies predict that fires could burn twice the area on average per year in Canada by the end of the century, compared to what has happened recently. Meanwhile, we continue to invest in the oil industry. It is beyond comprehension.
In 2002, at the Earth Summit in South Africa, French President Jacques Chirac said, “Our house is on fire and we are looking away.” This quote has stuck in my head since Monday. Quebec is on fire and some are looking away. Quebec is on fire and some want to contribute to oil and gas development. Quebec is on fire and they want to finish Trans Mountain. Quebec is on fire and some choose to deny climate change. I am disgusted. That may seem like a lot, but it feels good. I have to do it. I am telling my Liberal and Conservative colleagues that we have to act.
Today, my thoughts are with the seasonal workers, forestry workers and my colleagues who are hard at work on the ground. I have often had the opportunity to say in the House and to tell the people of Laurentides—Labelle that seasonal work is critically important. I am so afraid that they are going to be let down, which is something that they do not deserve. I listened to my colleague a few minutes ago, and I am hoping that our heartfelt pleas to make changes to employment insurance will be heard. I am imploring the government to make adjustments and allow flexibility to the qualifying period.
In closing, fires are currently raging in Laurentides—Labelle. My thoughts are with the residents and contractors in controlled harvesting zones. I will name just a few: Domaine de la Baie au sable, Pourvoirie Domaine les 4 vents, Pourvoirie des 100 lacs Sud, Pourvoirie Meekos, Pourvoirie Rabaska, Pavillon des pins gris campgrounds, Pourvoirie Cécaurel, and many others. As I take Highway 117 and go to our controlled harvesting zones, my heart goes out to them and to all Quebeckers who have to live with the consequences of these wildfires.
In closing, I would like to recognize the work of my colleagues, the member for Manicouagan, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, and the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. In all sincerity, I say to them and to the communities affected that we will not give up the fight against climate change.
1231 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 2:27:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois for his question. We agree with him. We must do more to fight climate change. There is a clear link between the forest fire season we are currently experiencing in Canada and the use of fossil fuels.
We must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. That is why we will be supporting the motion moved by the Bloc Québécois today in the House of Commons.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 2:42:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and for her activism on the issue of climate change.
I want to reassure her. Fighting climate change is the reason why we brought in carbon pricing, one of the most ambitious such initiatives in the world.
Fighting climate change is the reason why we are implementing zero emissions legislation to put more electric vehicles and zero emissions vehicles on our roads.
Fighting climate change is the reason why we are making record investments, including investing $30 billion in public transit by 2030.
Fighting climate change is the reason why we are putting a cap on greenhouse gas emissions and bringing in many other measures.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 2:49:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canada is on fire, and cities across North America are suffering in the smoke of this unprecedented ecological disaster. The Prime Minister promised the world that Canada would finally get serious about capping our oil and gas emissions, but since then, the environment minister has allowed an increase in production of 109 million barrels a day. Meanwhile, big oil is racking up record profits, firing thousands of workers and switching to automation. Therefore, where is this cap on big oil, and why will this environment minister not stand up for Canadian workers and our fragile planet?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 2:49:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it has been very clear that we are putting a cap on oil and gas emissions, but let us also talk about what we are doing to reduce combustion right across our entire economy.
Just last year, we tabled an emissions reduction plan. It covers all sectors, and we are doing that work. We are moving to a sales target on zero-emissions vehicles. We are helping Canadians to transition the fuels they use to heat their homes. We are going to make sure that we are there, and we are already seeing progress. The national inventory report that we put in with the UN showed that we are on track. We are already bending the curve on our emissions.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 3:50:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the fact that the planet is on fire and the Conservatives do not bother to show up for an emergency debate as they have nothing to say on it is not something that I think we should focus too much on because we have watched this gong show from them for a long time. The issue here in this motion is whether the Liberals will move beyond talk to action. Under the Prime Minister, emissions from oil and gas continue to rise. They are not doing their part. The environment minister allowed an increase of one million barrels a day. They will allow another 800,000 barrels a day under the TMX pipeline.
I am asking whether the government, in the face of this climate catastrophe will say “no more” to increased permits and increased development of oil and gas. That is the question before us.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 3:51:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am really glad to answer this question because it is similar to an exchange I had with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie earlier, which was specifically about our emissions. The reality is that despite economic growth during the pandemic, our emissions went down by 9% between 2019 and 2021. The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie earlier said that since the pandemic they have started going up. One cannot choose to use the bottom of the pandemic as a baseline if one is not going to accept the argument that they have come down since then.
The reality is that our emissions have not gone anywhere near where they were in 2019, despite that exchange that happened earlier. That is the reality of the situation. We have the second-best performance in the G7 for decreasing GHG emissions during that time period.
I think that we are doing our part. Can we do more? Absolutely. Does this motion call on the government to do more? Absolutely, and that is why I will vote in favour of it.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 5:10:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, our Conservative colleague mentioned our carbon exchange and the emissions permits we have in Quebec. When we sell emission units, a large part of the money, if not all, goes into Quebec's green fund and is used for various investments to make us more resilient to climate change and better able to adapt.
Would my colleague not say that, in the western provinces that rely on oil, instead of complaining about the federal carbon tax, they should seize the opportunity to implement similar mechanisms to ensure that those provinces could also, independently, take charge of their own transition? Would it not be more constructive and rewarding for them to do that?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
