Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to take this moment to review a question I asked back in June.
Particularly and unusually for Adjournment Proceedings, I am following my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, who in debate just pointed out to the hon. parliamentary secretary the inadequacies of the current government's plan. At this point, I am taking up on a similar theme, but based on a different question, and I think I will be discussing and debating this matter with a different parliamentary secretary.
We are now days from the end of COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, which was disappointing. In fact, at this stage in the planet's trajectory towards what Secretary-General of the United Nations calls the “highway to climate hell”, when we fail to do what is needed, it is not just disappointing; it is criminal.
We are standing here on the very edge of “too late”, as we know. Back in June, the question I put to the Prime Minister was in relation to the most recent report we have from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which should be understood as the largest peer-reviewed system of science that humanity has ever constructed. It is a very cumbersome process. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reviews massive amounts of peer-reviewed science and reports roughly on a full assessment every six to seven years.
Inevitably, with a cumbersome process of that nature, its reports always overestimate how much time we have and underestimate the level of risk and danger in which we find ourselves. Therefore, it makes me particularly alarmed that on April 4, as I referenced in my question in June, the IPCC advanced the clock on “too late” and warned us that for humanity to have any chance of holding to what we agreed to do in the Paris agreement, we must hold the global average temperature increase to as far below 2°C as possible, and preferably to 1.5°C.
Last year, at COP26 in Glasgow, as we all headed home feeling that disappointment, the president of the COP, from the U.K., said that 1.5°C was on life support. Really, it is very hard to believe that we could possibly hold to 1.5°C at this point, and that is because the most recent information from the IPCC, which I referenced in my question in June, was that in order to hold to 1.5°C or 2°C, we must ensure that global emissions peak, that is, hit their highest point ever, and begin to fall between 2020 and at the latest 2025. The window on our having a livable world for our kids, to avoid a self-accelerating, unstoppable, irreversible climate breakdown, closes before our next election, thanks to the cozy deal the Liberals and the NDP have cooked up, with no further action.
The response I got from the hon. parliamentary secretary in question period was that the government's ambitious agenda would ensure “that we will...do what is needed to reach our emissions projections”. However, here is the problem: The government's targets are not aligned with the science. The government's targets will amount to too little, too late.
The government's proactive promotion of new fossil fuel infrastructure and new fossil fuel development, projects like having the Canadian people pay billions of dollars to build the Trans Mountain pipeline, putting in place fossil fuel infrastructure to take us to that climate hell and developing Baie du Nord in offshore Newfoundland, are unforgivable. I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to clarify how we can claim to be a climate leader.