SoVote

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

May/6/24 3:09:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, and contrary to what the Minister of Environment just said, Canada is not on track to meet our target for 2030, which is expressed to the United Nations as 40% to 45% below 2005 levels, only conveniently forgetting the range into 45%. On top of that, we are still spending more money to support fossil fuels than to decarbonize: $34 billion on Trans Mountain; another $5.7 billion on fraud, carbon capture and storage; and under-spending when the government promised it was going to spend money on climate. We are at least $14 billion behind that promise.

101 words

Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/6/24 3:23:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to present a petition on behalf of folks who note, first of all, that thermal coal, the kind used to generate electricity, is the world's dirtiest fossil fuel. They note that thermal coal is responsible for half of the world's carbon footprint. They note that the world needs to rapidly move away from thermal coal if we have any hope of holding on to the 1.5°C target set in Paris to limit global warming. Petitioners go on to note many of the physical effects of the climate crisis, from permafrost melt to drought and wildfires, much of which we are seeing across the country and even more so around the world. They also note that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are actually the worst of any G7 country since the 2015 Paris Agreement, and certainly since 1990. Petitioners go on to then call on the Government of Canada to do two very specific things. The first is to add thermal coal to the priority substances list of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and as soon as possible to the toxic substances list of CEPA and, as a result of doing that, to go on to regulate the mining, use, export and import of thermal coal in accordance with our international commitments, effectively banning the export of thermal coal.

231 words

Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

May/6/24 10:31:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier in the session, I raised the issue of the ineffectuality of the carbon tax. Climate change is a very serious issue, and I find that the Liberal government's approach to this policy has made it very difficult for Canada to achieve any sort of gains in making progress on our targets. Moreover, the carbon tax has made it a lot harder for people to afford to live. In my riding of Calgary Nose Hill, I feel that the government should have done things such as invest in public transit and worked with our municipalities to build out LRTs. However, instead, we see an increased cost of living. We need to axe the tax. Why has the government not done this?

124 words

Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.)

May/6/24 10:32:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a common misconception about carbon pollution pricing and, quite frankly, I am surprised to be having this conversation with the member, who is extremely reasonable and generally quite fact-based and believes in science. Three hundred top economists from Canada have all written a letter pointed squarely at the Conservatives and their rhetoric around carbon pricing, urging them to look at the facts. A couple of things are true. One, our price on pollution is not having a negative impact on the very real challenges with respect to affordability that Canadians are facing. Inflation is the number one cause of the challenges that Canadians are facing when it comes to paying their bills, but there are other factors as well, like corporate profits and climate change itself, which is having an outsized impact on the price of food, particularly produce and meat, in all provinces and everywhere around the world, not just in Canada. This idea, referenced by my colleague, that carbon pollution pricing is the root of the affordability challenges is absolutely not founded in truth. It is this approach that the Conservatives have taken, which is a fact-free freelance on evidence and science. They seem to be ignoring all these economists who are basically urging the Conservatives to take a different approach. They have not, unfortunately. Even the most progressive and reasonable members of the Conservative caucus need to sing for their lunch and repeat the phrase over and over again, repeating the slogan. Slogans are not progress. Slogans are not policy. Slogans are not going to solve an existential threat like climate change. When somebody wins a Nobel Prize in economics for a concept, and then relates that to Canada's approach to carbon pricing, as William Nordhaus has done, who won a Nobel Prize for carbon pricing and said recently that Canada is getting it right, it demonstrates to the world exactly how carbon pricing should be done. It is because it is having a positive impact on the finances of families who are on the lower-income scale. I think back to how my mom's finances would have been supported with a $1,000 cheque, and now it is a $1,120 cheque for a family of four in Ontario. We need to rely on facts and evidence to get our emissions down in this country. Canada is one of the highest-emitting countries per capita, and a lot of that is coming from the province of my colleague, which is our largest oil and gas-producing province by far. Almost 40% of Canada's emissions are coming from Alberta and the oil sands there. Alberta has about 13% of Canada's population, so that is an outsized footprint that we need to address. It is unfortunate that we are here late into the night repeating slogans and catchphrases, but catchphrases and slogans are not policy. They are not going to help solve an existential threat like climate change. Carbon pricing is just one of a suite of measures that is lowering our emissions. In 2015, our emissions were going up. It is now 2024 and our emissions are coming down markedly. Finally, we will achieve our 2026 targets. That is really remarkable. We were on the wrong path in 2015, and we have changed course. We have turned around and lowered our emissions in Canada. This is a team effort. It does not have to be a partisan thing. It is not a Liberal approach to solving climate change or a Conservative one. It is Canada's approach to solving climate change and lowering our emissions, and I wish the Conservatives would come up with some solutions.

619 words

Context: House Hansard - 309 - May/6/24

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

May/6/24 10:36:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the reality is that even internationally renowned scientists like Jane Goodall have said that the carbon tax will not address greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Even the member opposite has made statements that I think stifle innovation, such as that “building highways is not a way to fight climate change.” The reality is that we need to find a solution in Canada that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions while encouraging economic growth and also addressing the needs of Canadians, like driving to work, which the member would know, especially in his riding, is a bit of a problem. What I think Dr. Goodall was saying in her remarks was that when we have a policy that is not working and is making life less affordable, we need to innovate. We need to think of other ways to address the problem. I think everybody agrees that the carbon tax is not working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. What would my colleague opposite say we should be doing instead?

173 words