SoVote

Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

May/19/22 2:39:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. As she is well aware, just over a month ago we presented our plan to fight climate change. It clearly shows how Canada will meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2030. Our plan will work regardless of whether oil production goes up, down or remains constant. Our emissions in 2019, before the pandemic, show that greenhouse gas emissions dropped, despite the increase in Canada's oil production.

78 words

Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22

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

May/19/22 6:35:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight on this adjournment debate. I want to acknowledge I am standing here on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. The question I am pursuing tonight I originally asked on April 27, so it had not been long since we had received the final chapter of the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with its most dire warnings ever. I asked the Prime Minister how it could be, given we had been told by the IPCC that emissions must peak globally by 2025 and drop dramatically from there to at least half by 2030, that two days later the government approved the Bay du Nord project, and how it could be that, three days later, the budget included continuing to build the Trans Mountain pipeline, while somehow transferring that monstrosity to indigenous ownership. The Prime Minister's answer, as ever, was that the government was doing so much and had committed $100 billion to be spent between 2016 and 2030. One hundred billion dollars is a lot of money, but it does not save us. The government's plan does not come close to holding to 2°C or 1.5°C. We are facing some very serious realities, and talking points will not do. I have to admit that I made an error in my question of April 27. On how bad things were, I quoted from the IPCC lead author, who said that it was “now or never”. I read the report of the IPCC as saying, as I just did, that we had until 2025 globally to ensure that emissions had peaked and dropped from there. I was wrong. I went back and reread page 22 of the “Summary for Policymakers” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's sixth assessment report. We do not have until 2025; we have less time. The quote is that “global emissions must peak between 2020 and, at the latest, before 2025”. This is not a political debate. I know the hon. parliamentary secretary is as good and decent a person as we are ever going to find in this place, and the minister is a good person and the Prime Minister is a good person, but it does not matter. The difference between policies developed by good people who fall short on climate change and policies by people who do not believe climate change exists, in the words of Bill McKibben, one of our leading champions for climate action globally, is losing more slowly. The Liberal plan before us does not deal with the science. It does not. Setting net-zero by 2050 as if it means anything is spin. It is not science. Net-zero by 2050 is only relevant if global emissions peak before 2025 and drop rapidly from there. I know what the hon. minister has said in this place about Bay du Nord and the emissions not being Canada's problem. Really? When did he lose his moral compass? The emissions do not matter if they happen somewhere else? Canada is to continue to increase producing oil and gas? It is not our problem if the emissions in other countries condemn our children to an unlivable world? That is what we are talking about; nothing less than that. When we have a choice between now or never, please do not choose never.

579 words

Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22

Ms. Julie Dabrusin

May/19/22 6:44:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do understand the urgency. It is, in fact, something I take very seriously in the work I do. It is something that I take to heart, and there is urgency in the work we are doing. In only looking through the emissions reduction plan, it goes through every sector of our economy, putting forward projections to reduce our emissions. We have signed on to international agreements. Canada joined over 100 countries in signing the global methane pledge to reduce global anthropogenic methane emissions by 30% by 2030. If we look at all of the work put together, including reducing emissions by 40% to 45% from 2005 levels by 2030, then we are on a path to net zero by 2050. It is urgent, I absolutely agree, and we are working with that urgency. We will continue to do so.

142 words

Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22

Mr. Kelly McCauley

May/19/22 8:07:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, sources in the U.S. tell us that we are so late in procuring the F-35 that it will not be available until 2030. Is this correct?

30 words

Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22

Hon. Filomena Tassi (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.)

May/19/22 10:31:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for acknowledging my stamina this evening, but I am also surrounded by an amazing team, so I have great gratitude for all those who are here and, as I said previously, spread out all over in order to assist me this evening. For the work of my team, I am just so grateful. In the answers that I did give previously, I actually stated that, with the initiatives we are undertaking, we would be achieving reductions of 82% in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, and we are in a very good position to achieve net zero by 2030 for our building portfolio.

111 words