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

Mr. Speaker, this is a moment of extreme cognitive dissonance. We have before us a motion that there is a climate emergency that was tabled on May 16 and then adjourned for a month. For an emergency, we should not be adjourning debate, nor should we have closure on debate.

I think the hon. parliamentary secretary will probably try to find some way to agree with me on this. The motion calls for us to declare a climate emergency, and then the motion calls for us to ignore it. The motion says we should commit to meeting the national emissions target tabled under the Paris Agreement, which is the one left behind by Stephen Harper, which was developed in a complete void. It had nothing to do with the negotiations, which had not yet happened.

If we are going to hold to 1.5°C, I would ask the parliamentary secretary to please explain and put on record when his party and his government will update the Harper target under which we are still operating, such that it can be consistent with what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned us in October last year must be done, which is approximately doubling current efforts.

Mr. Sean Fraser

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not think that we are seeking to ignore the nature of the emergency that we are declaring by virtue of this motion. In fact, we tried to use broad-based language that removed most of the politics from it by avoiding discussions of our specific efforts in the hope that we could just address the issue.

The target that is most important to me is the one that would get us to 1.5°C. We know that is where we need to be. With respect to the target the hon. member referred to, the target the government has used, it is a starting point, in my mind, that was negotiated with the provinces and territories as we were arriving at the pan-Canadian framework.

We know we need to continue to aim for deeper and deeper reductions to get where we need to be, and I look forward to the upcoming campaign, when we are going to be not only canvassing the ideas that we have already implemented, but identifying a path forward so Canadians can see how we can get there to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

Mr. Robert-Falcon Ouellette (Winnipeg Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, we all love Pope Francis because he is such a defender of social justice. I would like to quote from the National Post:

Pope Francis said on Friday that carbon pricing is “essential” to stem global warming—his clearest statement yet in support of penalizing polluters—and appealed to climate change deniers to listen to science.

This is extremely important, because we actually have a credible plan, which is before Parliament and before the Canadian public, and we need to do something. I call on good Catholics and on all Canadians to get behind the Pope and get behind this plan to make sure that we actually do something so we have a good environment for future generations.

Is this plan really the only plan that we have before Canadians? It is a very good plan, but we need to get started and not wait and wait and wait and listen to those deniers who would deny us the opportunity, like Doug Ford, or those in Alberta, or those across the country who deny continually, those Conservatives—

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment.

Mr. Sean Fraser

Mr. Speaker, of course, the Pope's comments over the weekend have come up a number of times today, including in my remarks. They are significant, not just because of who they come from, but because of the content of the message that was being delivered.

He quite correctly highlighted that climate change disproportionately impacts the world's poor and leaves future generations worse off than the generations that are alive today. There is a sense of injustice about it that we all need to recognize. The fact is that the call to obey science is just common sense. We need to be implementing the solutions that we do know exist. It is the right thing to do.

We have perspectives, including some that are represented in this chamber, of folks who will not start the debate on what solutions we need to implement, but on whether the problem is real in the first place and whether people can do anything about it. It is not a healthy starting point.

We are going to continue to implement a plan that is going to get us where we need to be, whether we have to bring folks with us or leave them behind.

Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, about six months ago, on December 6, on behalf of the NDP, I joined forces with a group of about 50 MPs from the Green Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP to call on this government to work with all parties and hold a kind of summit where everyone could agree on the importance of meeting these targets.

Sadly, six months on, I have yet to receive an answer from either the Conservatives or the Liberals.

How can that be, when my colleague just said we all need to work together?

He was perfectly right in saying that, but the government has a responsibility to bring people together to tackle a crisis that is like a major war.

Mr. Sean Fraser

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to climate change, my view is that the primary responsibility of the government is to implement measures we know exist that will get us where we need to be. To the extent that we can find common ground among different parties, that is a wonderful thing, but quite honestly it is an incredibly frustrating experience.

There are members from every party in this House who care deeply about this issue. However, bringing all parties together, when some so staunchly oppose every environmental measure we have advanced to date, is going to be a task that gets in the way of winning the war.

What we need to do is move forward with solutions like putting a price on pollution. We cannot even have a conversation about it that does not turn into a yelling match in this chamber. We need to implement solutions like this.

With respect to my hon. colleague, I would be pleased to have conversations with him about what ideas he and his party have to help inform our agenda. However, I expect that getting the unanimous consent of members of this House, and even all parties of this House, is a task that one would spend more energy pursuing when one could put that energy toward implementing solutions.

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for the beautiful riding of Kootenay—Columbia.

I am happy to rise today to talk about government business no. 29. This is the third time we have debated climate emergency in the House since October. I share the feelings of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that if this is an emergency, we should actually be doing something instead of just talking about it.

The motion begins by asking, “That the House recognize that: (a) climate change is a real and urgent crisis, driven by human activity, that impacts the environment, biodiversity, Canadians' health, and the Canadian economy; (b) Canadians are feeling the impacts of climate change today, from flooding, wildfires, heat waves and other extreme weather events which are projected to intensify in the future”.

Right off the top, I want to comment on the fact that Canadians are really feeling the effects of climate change. This year, B.C. is experiencing a very hot and dry June. Usually, it is the wettest month of the year in my region, but this year the hot, dry weather we normally experience in late July and August has come a month early.

Yesterday morning, I was awoken at 1 a.m. by a loud banging on my door in Penticton. I threw on my robe and stumbled to the door to find my neighbour there, who was shouting that there was a big fire across the fence and I should get ready to leave. I grabbed the big box of important papers and photos that we keep on hand in case of sudden evacuation, as do many British Columbians now, because of all the evacuations that have been happening. I threw on some clothes and headed out the door.

I live on the edge of a big area of grassland, sagebrush and pines, and there was a big fire only 200 metres away, with towering flames headed uphill toward my house. Fortunately, there was no wind and three fire halls responded quickly. Over the next hour, we were relieved the see the flames shrink and the crackling roar of the full-tilt forest fire change to the hissing sound of fire hoses and steam. This fire was not lit by climate change, but its rapid spread was fuelled by the grasses and dry brush, dried by weeks of unseasonably hot weather.

We are seeing this all across the country and around the world. Canada is warming faster than the rest of the world, and the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the country.

This year, the Bering Sea was virtually ice-free in March. That is a time of year when the Bering Sea is supposed to be gaining ice, not losing it all. This loss continues, particularly in the western Arctic waters of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. It is quite possible, and even likely, that 2019 will represent another year of record loss of Arctic sea ice, topping the record set in 2012. This loss of ice will disrupt weather systems across the northern parts of the world, and once that white ice is gone, ice that reflects heat and light, it is replaced by dark water that absorbs heat. Wind patterns change, delaying the freezing of the oceans in autumn. Ocean currents that mediate the climate of continents can dramatically fail or intensify.

Rick Thoman of the University of Alaska recently stated, “The Arctic is a regulator of Northern Hemisphere climate, and while the ice that is melting now isn't going to affect whether you get a thunderstorm tomorrow, in the long term, these are going to have profound effects on your weather and climate down the road”. We are heading for a cliff with our foot on the accelerator.

I would point out that this motion appeared magically the day after we debated an NDP motion on exactly the same subject, and the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against that motion. Why? It actually called for meaningful action, like taking our foot off the accelerator.

The motion before us today implies that current targets set out by the Liberal government are adequate. Climate scientists around the world tell us that they are not adequate. Not only that, the government's action will not allow us to meet even those inadequate targets.

On the Climate Action Tracker website, which assesses all countries of the world, Canada's actions and commitments are listed as “highly insufficient”, on par with China and behind India. Scientists tell us that we have already added 1°C to the world's mean temperature and we must keep that increase below 1.5°C. Based on Canada's progress to date, we are headed for more than a 4°C rise. If members think that forest fires and floods are catastrophic at 1°C increase, we can imagine what we are going to face at 4°C.

The NDP motion called for an accountability office to keep track of the government's actions toward its international commitments. Jack Layton called for this years ago in his climate accountability private member's bill. Other countries, such as the U.K., have legislated accountability as a central part of their climate action and have actually shown meaningful improvements because of it. The Liberals and Conservatives voted against this accountability. The Liberals did not include it in their motion, so I can only assume that they do not like it.

The NDP motion also called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies. This is a promise Canada made to the G20 years ago under the Harper government, and it still has not happened. We give billions of dollars to the fossil fuel sector every year, $10 billion through Export Development Canada alone. We should be spending that money on renewable energy and the electrification of the energy sector, including infrastructure and incentives for the shift to electric vehicles, which are meaningful incentives and meaningful investments. Instead, we bought an old pipeline, and tomorrow, the government will officially okay the permits for the Trans Mountain expansion, despite the fact that the oil sands expansion, which the pipeline depends on, is anathema to reducing our carbon emissions.

If we are serious about reducing our emissions and the world is serious about reducing its emissions, then adding long-term, multi-billion-dollar fossil fuel infrastructure is an exercise in abject failure. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report tells us that we are at a critical moment. We must act now, and we must act boldly. Again, we debated this when that report came out in October. Here we are talking about it again.

We cannot talk about a generations-long period of transition. We have to cut our emissions by 40% in the next decade. We have to cut them to zero by 2050, which is in 30 years. The good news is that we can do this while creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs. The NDP's plan, power to change, would meet the climate targets set out by the IPCC. It would promote indigenous reconciliation, and it would create 300,000 jobs over the next four years.

There are already more people working in good jobs in the clean-tech sector than there are working in the fossil fuel sector. I was just at a Clean Energy BC conference in Trail, British Columbia, and part of that conference dealt with the good jobs a clean energy plan would produce, such as battery recycling.

Retriev Technologies, in Trail, is the only company in the world that will recycle any kind of battery, and it is the only one that recycles large pure lithium batteries. If we hear complaints that the nickel hydride batteries used in hybrid cars or the lithium ion batteries used in electric vehicles will pollute the planet, look no further than Trail, B.C., for how we can create jobs, reduce pollution and help the world reduce carbon emissions at the same time. Also located in Trail is Fenix Advanced Materials, world leaders in the purification of rare metals used in solar panels and other modern electronics.

The electrification of our energy systems would mean an increased demand for copper, so there would be good jobs created in our mining sector, thanks to the plentiful deposits of copper across this country.

We can do this together. However, it is disappointing when the government's answer to our reasonable motion for meaningful action in the face of a climate emergency is to vote against our motion and present this one, which praises the status quo. This is no time for the status quo. It is a time when we all have to face the climate crisis for what it is, a crisis, and work together across party lines and across provincial borders to ensure that Canada does its share of the hard work the world must do to tackle this issue. It is the issue of our time.

It is getting close to midnight for action on climate change. Climate scientists, like good neighbours, are banging on our door. We should wake up and take action right now before it is too late.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, if we were to take a look at what has taken place over the last couple of years, we would see a very clear indication of a government that understands that we need to have the environment working hand in hand with the economy. That is the expectation a vast majority of Canadians have of government. On the one hand, we have the Conservatives saying that we are not doing enough on the economy side, and on the other, we have the New Democrats saying that we are not doing enough on the environment side.

I think this is a healthy debate. We want to move forward. We recognize the emergency nature of our environment. In particular, it has been encouraging to hear the parliamentary secretary and the minister responsible for Canada's environment file enunciate some of the policies we have.

With respect to much of NDP policy, and I will use the TMX pipeline as an example, it seems that the NDP is in opposition to any sort of pipeline expansion whatsoever. I wonder if my colleague across the way can make that very clear statement on behalf of the New Democrats regarding their position today. Does the NDP support any form of pipeline expansion?

Mr. Richard Cannings

Mr. Speaker, the mantra of the current government has always been that the economy and the environment go together. However, it seems to take that to mean that if it puts a price on carbon, it can okay three pipelines, and that will be okay. That is not how it works. I think the mantra should be that we cannot have a healthy economy without a healthy environment. The healthy environment has to come first. I think the Liberals have it all wrong. They seem to think that if they can do this one thing, they can do one or two of those things.

As for pipelines, these are expansion projects. These are pipelines that are being used to expand the output of the oil sands in Alberta. We are at a time when we have to think the other way. We have to move away from that expansion and move to a different world of energy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I put this question to my friend from South Okanagan—West Kootenay, recognizing the depth of his commitment and the depth of his understanding of the science. I would like to focus on what we can do together by recognizing that it is a climate emergency. My hon. colleague just used a figure that is close to what the IPCC said. Its report released on October 8 of last year said that to avoid going above a 1.5° global average temperature increase, and it identified that going above that represented extreme danger, with catastrophic impacts that could wipe out human civilization, we really have no choice but to try to hold to 1.5°. It said that the world, overall, must reduce emissions by 45% of 2010 levels by 2030.

When I crunch the numbers and look at Canada, because we are so far behind everyone else and are still dealing with people who think it is okay to build new pipelines and expand the emission of greenhouse gases, we should be reducing to 60% below 2005 levels by 2030. We have to get our target right and our trajectory right, or we will never achieve what must be done.

I wonder if the member has any thoughts on what the appropriate target is for Canada, given, as the hon. member said, quite rightly, that we are running out of time.

Mr. Richard Cannings

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for that question and for her commitment to this issue.

On the issue of what is the right target, I think the really important target is that we have to get to net zero, and if we have to get there by the middle of the century, then we have to do that. Right now, I think the government has said that we would be at 80% by then. However, that is the important target. Whether we get the targets of 40% by 2030, 60% by 2040 or 100% by 2050 exactly right I do not think it so important. However, if we are not going to get to the target we are going for right now of 30% by 2030, that is where I think the big failure is. That is where I think the current government has to change its targets to better targets and then change its plan to meet these targets to make a difference.

Mr. Wayne Stetski (Kootenay—Columbia, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this motion, as the climate crisis is the greatest challenge of our time.

We recognize it as an emergency and accept that we have an imperative to act. The most recent report by the international Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that we have about 11 years to dramatically reduce fossil fuel consumption or face catastrophic climate change.

A recent report commissioned by Environment and Climate Change Canada found that Canada is warming at twice the global average. Another recent report found that one million species of plants and animals around the world are at risk, and one of the reasons is climate change. We heard from some excellent witnesses this afternoon at the environment committee on this really important but distressing topic.

It is clear that we are facing an urgent ecological crisis. For too long, governments and corporations have delayed taking meaningful action on climate change, and now we find ourselves with the floods and fires at our door. We have a moral responsibility to take rapid, ambitious action that will set us down the path to a more sustainable and equitable future.

This spring, many students in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia participated in school strikes as part of a global movement started by 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg. At the World Economic Forum, Ms. Thunberg said:

I often hear adults say: ‘We need to give the next generation hope’. But I don’t want your hope. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I do. Every day. And want you to act. I want you to behave like our house is on fire. Because it is.

I know that in my riding, many young people share this fear for the future. I have received passionate letters from grades 5 and 6 Ktunaxa students worried about polar bears and the environment. My granddaughter, Lalita, who is graduating from high school this month, at times worries about whether her generation will have a future at all.

In addition to these fears, I have also heard from young people that they are confused and frustrated by the lack of action to address climate change. They feel let down by adults who have ignored the problem for decades. I recently attended a panel on climate change at Salmo Elementary School, where two students played an original song, part of which goes like this:

Why can't we just do it right, change the way we live our lives? People always say we're fine. Why can't they just see the signs?

It is not just young people who are recognizing that there is an urgent need to act. Local governments are on the front lines and recognize the need to make our communities more resilient to a changing climate. Many local governments have already had discussions on the climate emergency, but we need all levels of government to recognize the scale of the problem and to commit to acting collaboratively.

ln my riding of Kootenay-Columbia, Nelson city councillor Rik Logtenberg established the Climate Leadership Caucus to join local councillors and mayors across the country together to advance climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts at the municipal level.

While there are many solutions that can be implemented by local governments, from waste to transportation, municipalities often lack adequate funding to do so. It is critical that the federal government work with municipal partners so that they have the capacity to be climate leaders. I want to thank Rik for his leadership. He is truly making a difference in convincing mayors and councillors across the country that everyone must play a part in fighting the climate change war.

Also in my riding of Kootenay-Columbia, the Regional District of Central Kootenay has recognized the urgent need for action and collaboration on climate change. The RDCK is a collection of mayors and rural representatives who come together on important issues. Recently, they put forward a motion recognizing that climate change is “an urgent reality requiring rapid decarbonisation of energy” and that “[p]reparing for increased resilience and adaptability is critical.” They went on to say that the RDCK “recognizes that the world is in a global state of climate crisis” and requires an imperative that all orders of government undertake “rapid and far-reaching' changes to building construction, energy systems, land use, and transportation.”

While the Liberals have brought this motion to recognize climate change as an emergency, over the course of this Parliament, they have failed to treat it as such. The Liberal climate change plan shelters the biggest polluters and fails to meet even Stephen Harper's weak targets. Earlier this month, the Liberal member for Beaches—East York tabled a private member's bill that acknowledges that the Liberal's targets are not enough. The member stated, “greater ambition is now required to meet our national, intergenerational and our moral obligations. Science demands greater action”.

Recent media reports suggest that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has said that the upcoming election is a chance to toughen Canada's climate change targets. While I welcome more ambitious GHG targets, the government has had the chance for nearly four years to adopt them. Further, the government has taken actions over the course of this Parliament that actively hinder effective climate action, such as the continued subsidization of the fossil fuel industry.

This spring, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development found that the government failed to do a fulsome inventory of fossil fuel subsidies and did not consider long-term environmental and social impacts on an equal basis with economic factors in evaluating subsidies. The NDP is calling to immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies, so we can focus investment on renewable energy, public transit and energy efficiency, as well as ensuring a just transition for affected workers and communities.

While today we are debating the Liberals' motion to declare climate change an emergency, tomorrow the government will quite likely announce its approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, despite the National Energy Board's failure to consider the project's climate change impacts. This is not climate leadership. Quite frankly, it is climate hypocrisy. It is unconscionable that the Liberal government spent $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money on an old pipeline, with plans for expansion, at a time when we need to get serious about a rapid transition off of fossil fuels.

This bailout was a bad investment for Canadians, and the government should not pour more money into this project. Earlier this month, the hon. David Anderson, a former federal Liberal minister of the environment, wrote to members of cabinet, arguing that there is no economic justification for the project. He said that building a new pipeline will not change the market.

Instead of spending taxpayers' money on a pipeline expansion in the face of a climate emergency, we need a bold plan that reduces emissions while creating sustainable jobs for workers. The NDP's “Power to Change: A New Deal for Climate Action and Good Jobs” is a plan to do just that, by investing in priorities like renewable energy, public transit, energy efficiency and research and development. The United Steelworkers has said that this plan protects the planet and jobs, and I encourage all parties to have a close look at it.

As a vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I am also pleased that the committee tabled two reports this spring, one entitled “Clean Growth and Climate Change: How Canada Can Lead Internationally”, along with a second report on forestry, agriculture and waste, with a total of 34 recommendations on how the government can and must do better in addressing climate change. Instead of partisan bickering over carbon pricing, we need all parties to agree to work together on implementing comprehensive solutions.

I look forward to reviewing the Conservatives' environment plan this week, and I hope it will acknowledge the serious imperative we have to act on climate change. One of the largest motivators I had to becoming a member of this House was the gutting of environmental regulations by the Harper government and its inaction on climate change. I sincerely hope that the Conservatives realize it is time for a new path forward. It is critical that fighting climate change becomes a non-political, non-partisan issue.

With increasingly urgent warnings from experts and more frequent and severe extreme weather events, it is clear that climate change is no longer a distant threat and that the cost of inaction is too great. I look forward to engaging with my constituents this summer in a series of town halls regarding climate change, as I know that addressing this challenge will require everyone getting on board. We must accept that climate change is an emergency for our planet and begin to act with a sense of urgency. Our children and grandchildren deserve no less.

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his commitment to getting it right. I listened to his speech quite intently, and he was talking about the continued investment in the fossil fuel industry.

Let us say that we stop production on any fossil fuels within the next year, two years or five years. What would the member say to all of the workers involved in that industry? I am not saying that it should not be looked at, but there are thousands and thousands of people across the country employed in that industry, who maybe cannot be retrained into a tech or green type of industry.

What does the member say to those tradespeople? For me in Newfoundland and Labrador, my riding is a large riding. We talk about using electric cars. I use a gas vehicle. An electric car is no good to me; I have too far to go and nowhere to plug it in.

How do you justify saying that you have to do better? End all these subsidies right away. Let us get away from fossil fuels.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

I remind the member that he is to address all his questions and comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

Mr. Wayne Stetski

Madam Speaker, the member's question is absolutely fair.

Two or three years ago, there was an oil and gas convention here in Ottawa. I stayed afterward and met with a CEO for Suncor and asked her how difficult it was to transition their engineers from oil and gas into renewable energy. She said that some of them they can do it fairly easily while other ones require a bit more effort and training. Then just before Christmas, I heard a statistic for the first time, that 37% of the oil and gas workers have no post-secondary education. We absolutely need to have a transition that respects the jobs of all of the people who are currently working in the oil and gas industry, while moving to a new future.

When I speak with classes about pipelines, for example, I tell all of them that the pipe is not the problem; pipe is not bad in itself. However, when building a pipeline, it must be filled with something, and then it must be kept going for decades to pay for itself.

The question is, what kind of future do we want to see in Canada? The future that I see is a green energy future, not an oil and gas future. The pipe is not a bad thing, but it sets up a future that I do not think most Canadians would support in the long run.

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

Madam Speaker, to my hon. friend from Kootenay—Columbia, I think that those of us who understand the climate science, which I know he does, have something of a sense of despair when we are debating the climate emergency motion from the government. If we take seriously that this is an emergency and we understand the science, then the inevitable consequence is that we must plan a carbon budget in which we systematically reduce and ultimately stop using fossil fuels altogether. We must, in that process, include a transition for the skills of workers.

One great example that I will give are the orphan oil wells. There are thousands of them throughout Alberta and northern B.C., which have tremendous potential for geothermal energy production. The biggest cost for geothermal is drilling down deep below the earth's surface. The same people who drill an oil well can help manage it as a geothermal facility. However, we are paralyzed by the notion that if we want to save ourselves, someone might be out of work. Saving ourselves and ensuring that our children have a liveable world must be our number one consideration.

I ask the hon. member for his sense of this disconnect in which we find ourselves.

Mr. Wayne Stetski

Madam Speaker, there is a sense of urgency among our youth. I have to give all credit to the youth who are really driving this question and making all politicians around the world pay attention to climate change. They are concerned about their future.

The member is absolutely right about the opportunity around green energy. Looking at the possibilities for geothermal, solar and wind and, in the ocean areas, tidal energy, it is amazing. What it means is that people do not have to travel from Newfoundland or other parts of the country, like from my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, to Alberta for gainful employment.

If we move to a green energy economy, those jobs will stay right at home. A person would not have to leave home, but could have a good job and a better future for their family, as well as for the economy. It is there; we just have to make sure that we do the transition properly.

Mr. Darren Fisher (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.)

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my good friend, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to tell members more about what the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are doing to address the growing threats posed by a changing climate.

Last October, the Pentagon released a report, stating unequivocally that climate change effects are a national security issue, with potential impacts to U.S. Department of Defense missions, operational plans and installations. We are well aware that, in Canada, those same effects also impact our own national security.

That is why this government has prioritized Canada's response to climate change. All departments are working to advance our federal sustainable development strategy. Canada's defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, goes a long way to supporting those sustainability goals and mitigating emerging security risks posed by climate change.

The defence team understands that the impact of a changing environment and their impact on it should not be underestimated. By building environment and climate change considerations into all of their planning, procurement and operations, the defence team ensures they are doing their part to safeguard the environment and citizens of the planet. There can be no doubt that climate change poses a real threat to security, whether national, hemispheric or global.

The Americas are also seeing an increase in the severity of natural disasters, and this is something that Canada is working with regional partners to address. Last year, the defence minister hosted a working group on environmental protection and climate resilience in advance of the biennial Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas. CDMA is the only forum that brings together defence ministers from across the hemispheres to discuss regional security issues at a strategic level. In fact, climate has been on that agenda for several years now.

At the same conference in 2014, then U.S. defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, said: “Climate change is a 'threat multiplier' because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we already confront today-from infectious disease to armed insurgencies-and to produce new challenges in the future.” That is exactly what we have been seeing.

Over the past few years, the Canadian Armed Force's role in domestic disaster response has increased dramatically. Last December, the chief of defence staff, General Vance, told reporter Mercedes Stephenson that there are very few large military threats to Canada. By contrast, he said this of Canada's disaster response, “We face a significant threat almost every year now with natural disasters, forest fires and floods and so on that affect Canadians. So in our role to defend Canada and protect Canadians, that's been significant.”

Climate change has resulted in more extreme weather, which in turn produces more severe storms and natural disasters. The Canadian Armed Forces tracks these storms, floods and fires carefully to ensure they are ready to help Canadians whenever they are called upon, through Operation LENTUS. The reserve units play an important role in this and have responded rapidly in their local communities on many occasions.

In 2018 alone, the Canadian Armed Forces were called in to assist provincial partners in responding to six natural disasters, including floods, forest fires and winter storms. More pointedly, in the last five years, the Canadian Armed Forces responded to 20 natural disasters in contrast to the four years prior when they were called upon only to help out with five. The recent flooding in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick saw another 2,500 sailors, soldiers and aviators step in once more to help protect people, homes and critical infrastructure in those communities. In other words, at the peak of these floods, the number of Canadian Armed Forces personnel deployed on Operation LENTUS actually surpassed the number of Canadian Armed Forces members currently deployed around the world.

Looking to the north, climate change has made the Arctic more accessible, and it is being increasingly used for transit. The region also holds vast natural resources, which give it great strategic value for Canada and a number of international actors. All this translates into the risk of sovereignty challenges, environmental problems, accidents giving rise to search and rescue requirements, and possibly criminal activity. The Canadian Rangers are Canada's eyes and ears of the north. Their presence in communities across the north is instrumental in the conduct of Arctic sovereignty operations, as well as search and rescue activities.

As climate change continues to influence the Canadian Armed Forces' operating space, the defence team is acutely aware of the need to mitigate the causes of environmental degradation. The Department of National Defence has already reduced greenhouse gas emissions from its buildings and the commercial vehicle fleet by 31% from 2005 levels. The department is on track to reduce its emissions by 40% by 2030 and is moving toward meeting the new federal target of 80% by 2050. As the largest infrastructure portfolio with over 20,000 buildings, the Department of National Defence produces nearly half of the federal government's greenhouse gas emissions, so it knows it has an important role to play in enabling Canada to meet its climate objectives.

In terms of powering the military fleet, reliable, low-carbon and renewable fuels are not broadly available. Fighter jets and other aircraft, ships and armoured vehicles rely on carbon-intense fuels for power and using those fuels produces a significant amount of greenhouse gases. This equipment is essential to military operations and keeping Canadians safe. That is why the military fleet remains exempt from federal GHG emissions reduction targets, but the defence team does not interpret this as a free pass from achieving a more sustainable fleet. On the contrary, the department is tracking fleet emissions and partnering with industry on research into the sustainable fuels of the future. More importantly, it is testing sustainable energy solutions and new technologies in the field, working to limit energy use at deployed camps.

Since 2017, the Department of National Defence has also invested more than $165 million in infrastructure projects aimed at reducing its carbon footprint. In the past year alone, the department has built armouries at Halifax, Saint-Hubert and Sainte-Foy to ensure Canadian Armed Forces members have the modern, green facilities they need. All new construction and major recapitalization projects must meet industry-recognized standards for high-performing buildings, such as the LEED silver standard or equivalent.

The Department of National Defence also uses energy performance contracts to improve energy efficiency and awarded four new contracts at bases and wings across Canada since 2018. These kinds of investments have a significant impact. DND and the Canadian Armed Forces have made progress in minimizing the environmental impact of defence activities and will continue to act as responsible stewards of Canada's land, air and sea.

We cannot deny that climate change has become a daily reality for all of us. Each day, we see more evidence of its impact on our collective safety and security. As I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Armed Forces have responded to nearly four times as many natural disasters since 2014 as they had in the previous four years. That is why they are working so hard to contribute to a greener world. Like most Canadians, they know that our efforts must start now, so that in 50 years our children and grandchildren can enjoy a cleaner and brighter future.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member down the way for bringing in a different part of the discussion that has to do with the military and the effects of climate change on people who are in drought-stricken areas. We have deployed people across Canada. Guelph's 11th Field Regiment has been out combatting floods across Canada. However, we are also in Mali and other parts of the world where people have to leave due to droughts.

Today, June 17, is the United Nations world day to combat desertification, which looks at how we can combat deserts being created. It really is a war against climate change. It is a war against people losing the land where they grow their food, live and raise their families.

Could the hon. member comment on the social impacts of climate change on developing worlds?