Honourable senators, this item is adjourned in the name of Senator Clement, and I ask for leave of the Senate that following my intervention, the balance of her time to speak to this item be reserved.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Senator Coyle’s inquiry on the importance of finding solutions to transition Canada’s society, economy and resource use in pursuit of a fair, prosperous, sustainable and peaceful net-zero emissions future for our country and the planet.

Extreme weather events in recent years serve as a troubling reminder of the impact of climate change. I was in Italy last summer, where major heat waves kept people indoors. Year after year, the world is breaking heat records. This is a global problem that needs an all-hands-on-deck, international approach. And yet, not long ago, many would have dismissed calls for greater environmental stewardship.

Fast-forward to 2024 and most Canadians would agree that climate change is real and that we must work together to meet the pledge Canada and 194 other nations made in Paris to limit the rise in global temperature.

Polls continue to show that Canadians are increasingly concerned about the environment. In September, a poll by Leger found that 72% of Canadians are worried or very worried about climate change.

However, this same poll revealed that climate change is the top issue of concern for only 7% of Canadians. Inflation was top of mind for 33% of respondents, followed by housing affordability at 16% and rising interest rates at 8%, which indicates that Canadians are more concerned about their pocketbooks than they are about climate change.

We can’t hold that against them. Many Canadians, perhaps even most, have yet to be directly or severely impacted by climate change in a way that affects their lives or their wallets in a life-changing or disastrous way.

The financial consequences of not dealing with climate change now and more resolutely over time increases the more we delay. The risks of ignoring it are dangerous as temperatures rise and costs escalate. We can achieve meaningful results by reducing greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions.

But how do we get there? For Canada, it won’t be easy.

As a fossil-fuel-rich country, Canada is often at the forefront of discussions related to GHG emissions. In 2020, Canada was the second-highest emitter per capita in the world, just behind Saudi Arabia, although we only represent 1.5% of global emissions.

And yet, in my humble opinion, Canada is a global leader thanks, in part, to the government’s commitment to fighting climate change and mitigating its impact on our communities. Our track record isn’t perfect, but we should be proud of Canada’s leadership. As reported by RBC, and I share its views, “Canada’s starting position on climate policy is strong, with robust carbon pricing, regulations, and existing spending.”

I know we need to do more, but we’ve made great strides so far.

Thankfully, and to our credit, Canada has one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world. Achieving our GHG targets starts with greening our electricity.

The government agrees that the clean economy will depend almost entirely on clean electricity. Canada is already in an envious position, with 83% of its electricity coming from non‑emitting sources such as hydroelectricity, wind, solar and nuclear. And the good news is that solar and wind are increasingly more appealing to investors and can produce electricity at cheaper rates.

As a senator from Quebec, I am especially proud of our status as a clean electricity superpower thanks to our renewable, reliable and affordable hydroelectricity, which accounts for 94% of our mix.

Canada is also widely considered a leader because of its price on carbon. Although controversial in some circles — and understandably so — the price on pollution remains one of our best tools to reduce emissions by switching to cleaner fuels and using energy more efficiently.

I recognize many households are struggling financially, and the carbon tax is an additional burden on them, but we know that the newly rebranded Canada Carbon Rebate helps individuals and families offset the cost of the federal pollution pricing.

As we were recently reminded by Dale Beugin and Chris Ragan:

. . . most households—especially low-income households—get more money back than they spend on carbon costs. And contrary to popular opinion, these rebates do not undermine the effectiveness of the carbon price: households that take actions to reduce emissions can avoid the carbon price and get the rebate.

The cost of meeting our climate targets will be expensive, but we cannot afford to remain complacent. As Senator Galvez often reminds us, the cost of recovering from natural disasters and severe weather events is skyrocketing. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, severe weather caused about $3.1 billion in insured damages in Canada in 2022 — the third-worst year on record.

What can Canada do beyond putting a price on carbon? A couple of years ago, The Wall Street Journal published a great series of articles that laid out ways the world can cut its use of fossil fuels and reduce emissions. First, it proposed that government action force owners of coal, oil and natural gas to leave the fuel in the ground. Personally, I do not think this is feasible or realistic currently, as the world still needs fossil fuels, and I believe Canada has a leading role to play. As the Prime Minister once said, “As the world transitions to a cleaner economy, there will be demand for our existing resources. . . .”

The Prime Minister continued:

. . . we should take advantage of what we have, and invest the profits in what comes next, building the clean energy future that is already at our doorstep.

I agree with him.

The Wall Street Journal also advances that new technology will help solve the problem. I concur; R&D will help lead the way. Canada is at the forefront of R&D in many sectors, and has invested billions of dollars in clean energy and green companies. For example, we are a world leader in nuclear energy, and we should capitalize on this expertise.

Finally, the news outlet The Wall Street Journal reminds us that perhaps the most obvious option is to consume less. Companies and households need to be incentivized in reducing their overall energy consumption while shifting toward cleaner alternatives. As it suggests:

The simplest route to this is to use taxes to force companies to internalize the cost of carbon. Clean energy would become more attractive, not because clean energy gets cheaper, as we should all want, but because fossil fuels get more expensive. Overall, a higher cost should mean lower consumption.

I am reminded of this anecdote where a politician asks an audience of supporters, “Who wants change?” Everyone raises their hands and cheers loudly. When asked, “Who wants to change?” — there’s radio silence. Changing our behaviours and our relationship with energy will require collective and individual effort and sacrifice. Of course, we often forget that the cleanest and cheapest electron is the one we don’t use, so where does this leave Canada?

We are the fourth-largest oil producer and fifth-largest gas producer in the world. Canada’s oil and gas industries have generated billions of dollars that have been reinjected into our economy, our health care and our schools. In 2021, the sector was responsible for 7.2% of Canada’s nominal GDP, which represents $168.2 billion and employed over 440,000 Canadians, including over 10,000 Indigenous people.

Set against this backdrop, Canada remains committed to facing this global crisis head-on. And the pressure is mounting, particularly as we try to keep pace with the United States, which has made low-carbon investments a top priority. Thanks to its Inflation Reduction Act, “. . . the U.S. has not only restored its climate credibility, but also changed the rules,” according to an RBC report.

The report also states:

. . . America is now a big investor in the global low‑emissions sector. Canada will need to raise its game to compete for climate dollars.

If Canada wants to come out as a winner in the post-Inflation Reduction Act economy, RBC believes that we must be more strategic. We need an industrial policy where we choose high‑value economic activities where we enjoy sectoral advantages. One such example is carbon capture. The authors advocate:

Through support for domestic deployment of carbon capture technology, Canada can cut emissions, further improve the technology, and develop a domestic industry that exports carbon capture equipment and expertise globally.

We must exploit our talents and our strengths. I was pleased to see the government propose a refundable investment tax credit for qualifying businesses for eligible carbon capture, utilization and storage equipment in Bill C-59.

We know the transition to net zero will be costly. RBC’s modelling suggests that it would cost Canada $2 trillion from now until 2050. Based on its estimates, governments, businesses and communities would have to spend at least $60 billion a year to cut Canada’s emissions by 75% from current levels. That’s a significant jump from the estimated $15 billion a year we currently spend in Canada.

Globally, projections vary. Barclays’ estimates range from $100 trillion to $300 trillion between now and 2050. To put that in context, the current annual global GDP is about $100 trillion. McKinsey suggests $275 trillion will be needed in the net-zero transition between 2021 and 2050, which represents an average of $9.2 trillion a year, while the International Energy Agency annual estimates are about $4.5 trillion.

Whether we rely on the more conservative estimates or the more ambitious ones, the amount of money is monumental. Let’s look at the electricity sector only.

The Public Policy Forum published a blueprint last summer on how to grow Canada’s clean electricity supply at an accelerated rate. It reminded us that electricity demand is forecast to double by 2050, so not only do we need to clean the current grid, but we must also ensure that the growing supply is non-emitting. The cost of the clean electricity transformation ranges between $1.1 trillion and $1.7 trillion, which was nearly the size of the entire Canadian economy in 2023.

As I indicated earlier, we also face a post-pandemic reality where our citizens are struggling financially, and many expect the government to support them. To say there are competing interests is an understatement. As senators, we regularly meet with stakeholders and hear from them in committee. They represent various worthy causes, and they usually have one thing in common: They want more financial support from the government.

The reality is that the government has limited financial resources. Despite these limitations, and all things considered, I really do believe that governments and Canadians in general are committed to the fight against climate change.

In conclusion, I will come back to what I said at the outset. Canada is a global leader, and we should be proud of our track record. Personally, I find that we are too often critical of our shortcomings. Rather, we should recognize our achievements and actions in fighting climate change and mitigating its impacts. Sure, we can do more and even accelerate the pace, but we must be smart about it.

I appreciate the urgency of the matter, but this is a just transition, which implies this is a process — it won’t happen overnight. Some want us to put the pedal to the metal, while others caution us to transition smoothly and incrementally without too many disruptions. Finding the right balance is the biggest challenge that we are faced with as a global community.

We must never lose sight of the fact that we are a rich, industrialized country, while many developing nations have limited access to electricity, and they remain in a state of energy poverty.

Greenhouse gas emissions have no borders, so we need a global action plan. The challenge before us is daunting, but the opportunities are massive. Canada is uniquely positioned to lead the way in many sectors to help reduce global emissions. LNG from B.C. comes to mind. We must act decisively.

I am reminded of an excerpt from the 2017 report from our Energy Committee entitled Positioning Canada’s Electricity Sector in a Carbon Constrained Future:

. . . every nation’s effort to address climate change adds up and collective action will be the only way to meet this challenge. If Canada does not make a concerted effort to meet its own targets then how can we, as an advanced economy, ask other nations to meet theirs? Canada’s global reputation and credibility would be damaged if we failed to act.

I, for one, believe that our credibility is intact. The world knows we are committed to climate change, and our track record proves that.

I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I thank Senator Coyle for her inquiry. I hope other senators will take part in this important debate. Thank you. Meegwetch.