.avif)
This year, the climate crisis was deeply felt in Canada.
Temperatures in British Columbia hovered around 50 degrees Celsius, breaking temperature records. Because of this extreme heat, thousands of forest fires have raged across Western Canada, destroying natural habitats and causing the displacement of populations. Faced with such a critical situation, do our elected officials have ambitious plans to tackle the climate emergency?
What the five main federal parties are proposing to fight the climate crisis
The Conservative Party is proposing a personal savings account for carbon reduction. Each time a consumer buys hydrocarbon fuel, $20 per ton of fuel will go into their personal savings account, an amount they can use to live a greener life. The Green Party is proposing a carbon tax that will increase by $25 per ton from 2022 to 2030. The Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc and Green parties are committed to achieving carbon neutrality, that is, reaching a zero emission pollution target.
By 2030, compared to the 2005 emissions level, the Conservative Party plans to reduce emissions by 30%, the Liberal Party plans to reduce them by 40% to 45%, the New Democratic Party aims for a reduction of at least 50%, the Bloc party does not mention an exact target, and the Green Party plans a 60% reduction. As for the Liberal and New Democratic parties, they promise to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.
The Green Party is committed to achieving carbon neutrality well before 2050 and aims for negative carbon emissions in 2050. The Conservative, Liberal, NDP, and Green parties want to increase the number of electric vehicles in the country. The Conservative Party is proposing a 30% increase in all light-duty vehicles by 2030 in Canada and at
The NDP is committed to ensuring that 100% of vehicles sold in the country by 2035 will be zero emissions and promises an incentive of up to $15,000 to help Canadians buy them. The Green Party is committed to banning the sale of vehicles equipped with an internal combustion engine by 2030 and to abolishing the federal sales tax on all electric vehicles. The NDP, Green, Liberal, and Conservative parties are committed to supporting public transit. The NDP is committed to modernizing and developing free, electrified public transit systems by 2030.
The Green Party is committed to ensuring that the entire country has access to carbon-neutral public transportation and to abolishing sales taxes on it. The Liberal Party is committed to supporting major carbon neutral public transit projects, creating a fund for public transit in rural communities, and developing public transit solutions in rural areas.
The Conservative Party is committed to building public transit infrastructure that connects homes and workplaces and to requiring federal funding for this transportation. The Conservative and New Democratic parties also plan to impose a tax on industrial carbon. The Conservative Party plans to tax it at $170 per ton by 2030. The NDP is planning a carbon price, without giving details about it.
Conservative, liberal, and green parties plan to invest in natural climate solutions, that is, using the properties of nature to store polluting carbon.
The Conservative Party is committed to investing $5 billion in carbon sequestration technologies. The Liberal Party is committed to continuing to plant trees across the country, restore natural habitats, and ensure that the cycles of nature are part of an ecological agricultural plan. The Green Party promises to put carbon sequestration plans into action.
Conservative, Liberal, and Green parties intend to support and collaborate with Indigenous land keepers to create Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs).
Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc, and Green parties are committed to making a transition to green energy. The Conservative Party is committed to investing in nuclear power and clean natural gas and creating jobs in these sectors. The Liberal, New Democratic, Bloc and Green parties are committed to investing in a renewable electricity network.
The NDP and Green parties are committed to creating jobs in green energy sectors. The Liberal, New Democratic, and Green parties are committed to renovating buildings to a more efficient energy standard. The Liberal Party promises to give Canadians a grant of up to $5,000 and interest-free loans of up to $40,000 to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.
The NDP is promising low-interest loans to Canadians and supports for renters and low-income households to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. It is also committed to ensuring that every new building built is carbon neutral by 2025. The Green Party is committed to creating a national program for the ecological renovation of residential buildings, to supporting organizations that offer green renovations, and to ensuring that every new building built and every renovation carried out by 2030 meets zero emission standards.
The Liberal, New Democratic, Bloc, and Green parties intend to end government subsidies in the fossil fuel sector. The Liberal Party intends to advance the date of disposal of these subsidies from 2025 to 2023, and to gradually eliminate public subsidies from the fossil fuel sector by 2050. The New Democratic, Bloc, and Green parties intend to immediately end federal subsidies in the fossil fuel sector.
Are the parties ambitious enough?
“First of all, we must recognize that there is an emergency. We must act quickly and start taking radical actions now if we want to avoid disaster. Currently, as stated in the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we are heading for disaster,” warns Jean-François Boisvert. “If the trend continues, we will see an increase in the Earth's average temperature of 3 to 4 degrees. That would be downright catastrophic for almost all countries.” Asked about the current jobs in fossil energy industries that will potentially be lost during a green transition, a justification that the Conservative Party uses to continue supporting these sectors, the president of the Montreal Climate Coalition (CCM) is firm. According to him, an energy transition that would include these workers is possible. “What the parties are proposing are peripheral measures that do not attack the core of the problem, and in Canada, it is fossil energy. This form of energy must be abandoned within 20 years. As long as we don't do that, I don't think we can solve the climate issue,” laments Mr. Boisvert. “If we want to make a just transition that does not penalize workers, there is a way to get there, but we have to address the problem in its full extent, and that's not what the main parties are doing.”
The activist believes that the Green Party's 60% emissions reduction target by 2030 is a good start, but that an action plan must be developed to gradually reduce emissions. “The objective is to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. To do this, a gradual reduction must be targeted. With the Green Party's target, that would be realistic,” he said, noting that his organization is calling for carbon neutrality as soon as possible. “You also need an action plan to get there, otherwise it's just numbers. It is also important to have a carbon budget that determines the quantity of emissions that Canada can emit by 2050.” To do this, it asks candidates to make annual inventories of the quantity of carbon emitted, an approach that is rare at the moment. He believes that this measure is essential, since 2050 is just around the corner. Mr. Boisvert also believes in citizen participation in the fight against the climate crisis. “Our organization believes that involving citizens in the processes will ensure that the process is more democratic, because they will have the chance to express themselves and contribute to a green transition,” he claims. He believes that citizen participation allows those who are primarily concerned to have their concerns taken into consideration. The president of the CCM believes that this participation ensures that the most marginalized people are not forgotten. “People with low incomes have to work several hours and have to take care of their children.
These people do not necessarily have the time to get involved in green transition groups, but it is still essential to take into account their requests,” explains Mr. Boisvert. “This is how I see an inclusive climate movement that does not penalize these people.” For example, he highlights the fact that banning gas-powered cars risks penalizing the most marginalized people because they live in neighborhoods where public transport networks are often less developed. For the activist, federal public transit strategies must take these neighborhoods into account. According to him, citizen participation will also be able to provide climate solutions adapted to the distinct local realities of different municipalities across the country. Nicolas Chevalier is an organizer at Leap Montreal, a group that fights for intersectional environmental justice. They believe that of all the main parties, the New Democratic Party offers the best environmental platform. “Their platform supports an ecological transition that does not depend on the private sector and market forces. Their suggestions, such as increased demand for public transport, plans for active transportation such as bicycles, fall within the purview of the public sector,” he elaborates.
“Overall, their plan is more democratic and inclusive for citizens. I don't like the Green Party platform because they are very focused on market solutions that involve technology and innovation. Economic growth is everywhere on their platform.” The organizer believes that it is problematic that none of the five main federal parties are questioning economic growth. According to them, it is one of the main causes of climate change.
“Conservative, Liberal, and Green parties promote economic growth as a way to save the environment. In my opinion, it's not really possible,” they say. Although the activist believes that the New Democrats have the best environmental platform of the main parties, he believes that all parties are very far from the demands of environmental and social justice activists. The organizer is firm about the root of environmental problems, which they say lies in the capitalist structure of the current Canadian economy. They demand the complete divestment of the federal government in fossil fuels and investment in public services. Nicolas Chevalier also sees the promises of investment in renewable energies and the jobs created in these sectors with a skeptical eye. “Even the New Democratic Party, which has the least worst platform, does not recognize that the causes of climate change are capitalism and colonialism,” he is outraged. “When we talk about a transition to clean energies, it clouds the continued extraction of minerals, a practice that continues the exploitation of natural resources.” and the theft of indigenous lands.”
Instead, they believe that green jobs are in low-carbon sectors, such as health care.
They are dissatisfied with the Liberal Party, which does not grant indigenous peoples, who are the guardians of the land, a right to prior and informed consent in environmental projects that directly affect their territories. “They are changing the word “consent” for the word “consultation”, and they are making it clear that it is not a right of veto,” they lament.
Indigenous people excluded from environmental issues
Several aboriginal groups agree with Nicolas Chevalier. In March 2021, Indigenous Climate Action released a report that criticized the fact that Canadian environmental policy routinely excludes Indigenous nations. The report is extremely tough on the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (CPC), a plan published in 2019, and on A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy (SES), another plan published in 2020. The editors, Nêhiyaw-Iskwêw researcher Rebecca Sinclair, and the non-native researcher Dr. Jen Gobby lamented the fact that Indigenous peoples were denied full members in the working groups developing these environmental strategies.
They called this a hypocritical act when the CPC clearly mentions that indigenous ecological knowledge is the key to the solution of the climate crisis. When they asked officials about the reason behind the refusal, they said anonymously that two provinces had blocked full indigenous participation in these working groups. They did not want to specify the names of these provinces. Ms. Sinclair and Dr. Gobby also found that the process for developing these Canadian environmental plans does not respect the Indigenous right to self-determination and consent supported by the United Nations, the demands of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the 2015 promises of Justin Trudeau. Both researchers found that the inclusion of indigenous people in the CPC is largely superficial. The plan does not allow them to have control over the carbon taxation process, which goes against the principle of indigenous sovereignty over their own territories. In addition, they cannot benefit from carbon tax credits because many do not pay taxes. Researchers also fear that carbon taxes could cause food prices to rise, worsening the food crisis in many communities, especially those in the Far North.
Ms. Sinclair and Dr. Gobby also found that CPC transportation measures overlook Indigenous communities. According to them, many remote Indigenous communities do not have access to a functioning public transportation network, or a network of chargers for electric cars. In addition, many indigenous people cannot afford to buy electric cars because of the high cost of these cars. They are particularly tough on the renewable energy plans proposed by the CPC, many of which are similar to those proposed by the main federal parties. Researchers believe that hydroelectric dams, cited as a solution by Liberal, New Democratic, Bloc and Green parties, have deeply harmful consequences for several communities. In Manitoba and Quebec, the construction of electrical dams in the past caused floods in several Indigenous communities, destroyed ecosystems permanently, and forced the displacement of several Indigenous people. When asked about this, Karine Lafontaine, representative of the Bloc Québécois, told us that the federal government is not responsible for implementing renewable resource development projects. “On the other hand, the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-15 at all stages, which implements the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the concept of prior, free and informed consent,” she answered us in an email.
“It is up to companies that start water resource development projects to seek social acceptability and to reach agreements with the First Nations concerned in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent by working in partnership with them.” The Liberal, NDP, and Green parties did not respond to our interview request. Ms. Sinclair and Dr. Gobby believe that the political parties' emphasis on renewable energy is wrong, as these solutions always focus on exploiting natural resources. According to them, the exploitation of natural resources is a fundamental principle of a capitalist and colonialist economy, which they consider to be the real cause of the climate crisis.
The most recent IPCC report corroborates their views by arguing that the climate crisis is a problem of values and power imbalances, not a lack of renewable technologies. The two researchers are also skeptical of the effectiveness of APCAs, advocated by conservative, liberal, and green parties. They believe that this solution can only work if the federal government is prepared to provide adequate funding and a position of power to Indigenous peoples to carry out these projects. Given the chronic underfunding of indigenous initiatives and the forced displacement of several indigenous communities that can no longer live on a natural territory that was newly declared protected in the past, the researchers doubt that APCAs are an adequate solution.
Aboriginal environmental claims
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), a national organization that represents Canada's 65,000 Inuit, has also published a report entitled Inuit Priorities for Canada's Climate Strategy (IPCCS). In this report, ITK highlights the particular needs of communities living in the Canadian Arctic, a region that is warming two to three times faster than the rest of the country. IPCCS is sounding the alarm about the rapid melting of sea ice and permafrost, two natural attractions that are a source of food, learning, memories, and knowledge for Inuit. According to them, the disappearance of these two attractions would lead to the disappearance of the Inuit way of life and culture.
The ITK calls for new safety protocols for Inuit hunters, on whom the majority of families depend for their food security, as they cannot rely on traditional routes that are being modified by climate change. These protocols are all the more urgent since 63% of Inuit families currently suffer from food insecurity due to the high cost of living in the Far North and the climatic disturbances that affect hunters. The ITK also calls for an energy independence plan that takes into account northern realities such as the absence of year-round roads, the lack of telecommunications infrastructure and severe weather conditions. The Inuit community also wants to have an important place during international climate negotiations, as it is among those most affected by climate change. Daniel Gladu Kanu, the director of the Lake Winnipeg Indigenous Collective (LWIC), is tired of seeing First Nations being excluded from environmental solutions.
“The parties did not ensure that indigenous sovereignty was an integral part of the APCAs. At the moment, the APCAs are still under the authority of Parks Canada,” laments Mr. Kanu, an Anishinaabe-Métis from the Animakee Wa Zhing region. “So, Parks Canada can form partnerships with us, but the final decision is up to them.” For the LWIC director, this situation is reproduced in several environmental initiatives. A project that affects Indigenous territories takes shape in the federal government, and Indigenous people are only consulted when the project is well under way. At this stage, it is very difficult for them to demand change. “There was a project in Manitoba that aimed to combat climate change by diverting the waters of a lake.
But these waters have spilled into several Indigenous communities, a disaster that amounts to a billion dollars in damages,” explains Mr. Kanu, as an example of the lack of consultation. “First Nations were not consulted on this issue. Some of us are still not able to return home because of this project.” For this reason, he is very tough on those who consider hydroelectric power to be a green solution. It reminds him of the major dam projects that were started in the 1970s and that flooded several Aboriginal communities. “Some people had less than a week to get all their stuff and move. And their houses were flooded the following week,” he recalls sadly.
“More recently, there has been more consultation with Indigenous peoples on this issue, but most of our requests are still being ignored. The projects were approved, there were some compensation measures, but the communities were still displaced. These are the impacts of hydroelectricity, which is often considered to be green energy.” Mr. Kanu claims the right of First Nations to have more control over decisions made in the context of project development. For him, since they are on the territory from which the indigenous people draw their food and health care in the form of medicinal herbs, they must be the main decision-makers.
Mr. Kanu also believed that indigenous people should benefit from the exploitation of natural resources, which took place mainly on their territories. The LWIC director sees the source of all these problems in systemic racism. According to him, indigenous people are victims of racism when they are consulted in environmental projects because several officials are not trained to work with them. The fact that the few indigenous staff in public departments dedicated to environmental issues do not have enough seniority to make crucial decisions for indigenous people does not help. Moreover, Indigenous ecological knowledge does not have the same value as science in courts that decide on environmental decisions.
“There are no environmental solutions that exclude Indigenous peoples. This includes climate change, the protection of waterways and ecosystems,” he concludes. “Indigenous people have lived on this land for a long time and have accumulated knowledge that is essential for the future.”