44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 26, 2022 10:00AM
- Apr/26/22 2:15:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have been celebrating Earth Day on April 22 since 1970, but sometimes I get the impression that we are actually celebrating Groundhog Day because nothing has changed for such a long time, despite the fact that science has clearly established the urgency of the situation.
Big changes need to come from governments and private corporations, which are moving at a snail's pace, if not actually going backwards, as this government did recently with its outrageous decision to increase oil production. We need to kick up a fuss, channel our energy and take action.
I therefore invite everyone to participate in a demonstration in Quebec City on May 8. Yes, that is Mother's Day and, no, that date was not chosen by accident. Mother's Day is the perfect opportunity to unite for a noble cause.
In 1870, the American Julia Ward Howe invited mothers around the world to unite for peace. This year, on May 8, let us unite for the earth and renew the intent of Mother's Day. Let us take action to protect our present, our future and our children's future.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/22 2:38:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in his report released this morning, the Commissioner of the Environment revealed that Canada's hydrogen strategy was based on unrealistic hypotheses, which of course compromises Canada's ability to meet its climate targets.
The commissioner is urging Canada to go back to the drawing board. However, the Minister of Environment is using Canada's hydrogen strategy as part of his plan to reduce emissions by 2030. We know that when it comes to hydrogen, his plan is based on unrealistic hypotheses.
Is that the only part of the plan that is based on unrealistic hypotheses?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/22 2:39:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to move on to another equally concerning report that came out this week on the environment, this one from the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.
The UN office is projecting that, by 2030, the number of natural disasters per year will reach 560. We are talking about floods, major droughts and extreme temperatures. All of these will increase by 40% in just eight brief years. The UN has called it a spiral of self-destruction.
Did the Minister of Environment consider the increase in natural disasters before approving the Bay du Nord project and its billion barrels of oil?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/22 2:40:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Earth Day was last Friday.
The Minister of Environment issued a news release for the occasion, saying, and I quote, “Canadians join people around the world to...focus on everything we do to keep our shared home healthy.”
Could the minister explain and share his thought process on how approving Bay du Nord and its billion barrels of oil will keep our shared home healthy?
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech.
The Bloc Québécois thinks it is better to talk about environmental justice for all. Take, for example, the Mercier–Hochelaga‑Maisonneuve neighbourhood next to where I live, where 77% of people are non-immigrants. They are currently living on a much lower income. A Ray‑Mont Logistiques development project is set to begin, bringing with noise and dust with it, and part of the neighbourhood will be destroyed.
The population is 77% non-immigrant. If we are talking about difference, these are not people who came here through immigration. These are people who were born in Canada. The problem of environmental justice affects everyone, regardless of the colour of our skin or the country in which we were born.
What does my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands think of that?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I too would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for sparking the discourse, the controversy and discussion. I would say that we in the Bloc Québécois have taken this very seriously. We discussed it for over an hour. However, we may not agree on everything.
There is no doubt in our minds that the federal government has a responsibility to certain populations in Canada, people who face inequalities in their relationship with the the environment. The state and quality of the environment has had serious repercussions on our lives over the past two years. We know that this is of paramount importance to everyone.
The Bloc Québécois supports the intention expressed in the title and preamble of Bill C-226 when it comes to environmental justice. If Parliament is to pass such a law, we believe that the concept of environmental justice must be the be the main subject and central concept.
The living conditions that some individuals and communities in Canada find themselves in—and I am thinking here of drinking water, for one—are inconceivable and unacceptable in a supposedly wealthy G7 nation.
That is why we think the House is justified in expressing its desire to act against environmental inequality and discrimination, to study these phenomena in greater depth, to understand the mechanisms and to explore possible solutions. That is all fine.
The existence of geographical differences in standard of living and access to a quality environment is a concern. We should worry about the fact that citizens who are immigrants, who belong to visible minority groups and indigenous communities or who are socioeconomically disadvantaged are directly affected by these differences.
That is why the Bloc Québécois supports government action to address environmental inequality affecting all communities. However, we are not convinced that implementing this from coast to coast to coast across the federation is the right approach if we want to protect the rights of all people to health and access to a quality environment.
Any action the Government of Canada takes must take into account the prerogatives of Quebec and the provinces because environmental protection, health and social services are under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The government must therefore acknowledge Quebec's expertise in this area.
In any case, we are convinced that it would be inconsistent to claim to fight for environmental justice at the federal level while failing to advocate for the defence of Quebec's environmental sovereignty.
Some federal infrastructure is not covered by our protection laws. I will talk about a very specific case, that of the Limoilou area, which is next to the Port of Québec. Quebec's environmental laws, which are much more stringent than the federal ones, do not apply there because ports fall under federal jurisdiction. Consequently, everyone living in Limoilou, whether they are immigrants or not, are seeing the quality of their environment and their health deteriorate as a result of dust from ore transshipment. Everyone in the Limoilou neighbourhood is suffering. This is known as a low-income neighbourhood.
Nevertheless, the House rejected the solution proposed by the Bloc Québécois several times by voting against our bill on Quebec's environmental sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to the unanimous will of the National Assembly of Quebec expressed on April 13, 2022, which members will agree is fairly recent, to support the primacy of Quebec's environmental jurisdiction. Members were unanimous in opposing any federal environmental action on Quebec's territory.
In Quebec, the right to live in a healthy environment that respects biodiversity has been included in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms since 2006.
The House of Commons will have an opportunity to follow our lead because Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act, is currently being studied in the Senate. It must come back to the House, and we can only agree with introducing this right into Canadian legislation.
Environment-based human rights need to be developed. The best protection against inequality is Quebec's social safety net and the defence of our collective choices.
I remind the House that there is a consensus that socio-economic disparity, limited access to decision-making bodies, and a lack of political power and representation are all at the heart of this quest for environmental justice. When we talk about environmental justice, we are talking about all of this.
The factors I just mentioned cannot be ignored if we want to pursue justice. This is no small feat. We have a lot of work ahead of us.
Quebec has chosen solidarity. Quebec has the best record in North America when ti comes to the distribution of wealth. This can be measured. Pan-Canadian standards and strategies often run counter to our collective choices. There are a number of examples of this in the most recent budget, which we have been debating. The federal governments' interference in social affairs is harmful and does not reflect Quebec's reality.
The Bloc Québécois works and advocates for Quebec to be its own country, a country founded on mutual recognition among indigenous nations, a country in which all citizens, no matter the colour of their skin or where they were born, are equal and entitled to equal enjoyment of the benefits of social and environmental justice.
A good policy is obviously a policy whose measures are characterized by a reasonable degree of flexibility. There are certainly extreme situations, such as unacceptable living conditions, that require an appropriate public response. However, let us remember that good policy is universal. It serves the common good and applies to everyone.
Universal public policies—and I must emphasize this—also dismantle unequal structures and discriminatory practices. Be it in Quebec, France or elsewhere, social policies that have done the most to advance rights, develop the social safety net and eliminate inequality—or, in other words, develop the welfare state—are, as I said, universal policies intended for everyone.
The Bloc Québécois wishes to emphasize its commitment to the principle of universality, which enables all members of society to pursue economic and social well-being.
If we institute new policies based on new rights, such as the right to a clean environment, everyone, without exception, should have them. If the policy is well thought out and the measures implemented have a real impact on these inequalities, those who suffer the most from injustice will receive help and support, or reparation for the harm done, from the government.
If the rights and the eligibility criteria for government protection and support are universal and their principles are applied to everyone, without discrimination, then the policy will eliminate inequalities based on differences.
I want to share some lines from a song by Gilles Vigneault, a great Quebec poet who sang Mon pays, which has been adopted as a Quebec anthem. This song evokes the warmth and universality of the Quebec people.
About my solitary countryI cry out before I am silencedTo everyone on earthMy house is your houseInside my four walls of iceI take my time and my spaceTo prepare the fire, the placeFor the people of the horizonAnd the people are of my race
The Bloc Québécois believes that these rights, and the policies that stem from them, will have to be universal. Everyone must have them, regardless of their differences.
Then we will have powerful legal tools to address inequities and discrimination, including on the basis of origin, language or cultural background, which are induced by unequal environmental factors such as exposure to pollution or lack of access to clean water or life-sustaining resources.
1315 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
