SoVote

Jun/7/22 2:18:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, during the night of June 25 to 26, there will be a moonlight tennis challenge in my riding in support of the Kidney Foundation. The name of the event is “Get on the ball and make a donation”. Tennis players from across Quebec will face off on the court to raise money for people with kidney disease, many of whom undergo dialysis at night. Dialysis is not a solution. Transplants do not necessarily guarantee a cure. That is why this athletic event will be raising awareness about the vital importance of kidney health. The money raised will give hope to the thousands who have kidney disease or are waiting for a transplant. In Quebec, more than 550,000 people suffer from kidney failure, including 1,300 in the Lanaudière region. Rates are not going to go down. American studies clearly link increased levels of fine particles due to pollution with the risk of developing chronic kidney failure. I encourage everyone who wants to get on the ball and make a donation to do so at tennisnocture.ca.

187 words

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Jun/7/22 7:35:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. I just got back from a short trip to Stockholm last week to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first Earth Summit in 1972. These summits on global environmental challenges are always very informative, but over the years they sometimes take on another tone. I have to say that the data is becoming quite worrisome. This year, in 2022, the call for urgent action was clearer than ever. The statistics and the evidence should be stirring us into action and motivating us to implement bold public policy that provides hope for the future. People say there is always someone who is worse off than we are, but based on what I saw in Sweden, I would venture that Canada might not even be able to say that. That is how badly off we are. In its most recent report, the IPCC highlighted the important, if not critical, role that municipalities play in combatting climate change. I would say that Stockholm recognized that well before—

192 words

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Jun/7/22 7:37:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the city of Stockholm is at the forefront. I will not talk about the many praiseworthy elements of its urban planning, but, in short, it is a model city. Obviously, some will say that Sweden is a small country that does not face the same challenges as Canada. That is true. However, the real difference is that Sweden has the political will and courage to do things differently, with the common objective of meeting the collective imperatives. What are the current collective imperatives? The climate crisis and even the survival of humans. We must acknowledge this and take action to counter the declining biodiversity and the material threats represented by all climate events, such as violent winds, forest fires and the destruction of infrastructure. These events are reported every day in the newspapers. I have not forgotten about health. The World Health Organization just issued a new policy brief on the measures that countries must implement to address health issues related to climate change. This brief was released as Stockholm+50 ended. The WHO urges us to view health not just from the historical perspective of pollution and its links to cancer, but by also factoring in psychosocial well-being, anxiety, depression, persistent grief and suicidal behaviour. It is David versus Goliath. David is the millions of citizens who are worried about their future and their children's future. David also represents the organizations that are trying to knock some sense into politicians. Goliath is big oil, which is dominated by foreign interests and whose ambitions are being legitimized by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, an influential third party, which is really worrisome. In December 2021, the Council of Canadians released a report analyzing the system that is in place. It revealed an industry sector that is holding the government hostage and keeping it captive through intensive lobbying. This is the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. The author of the study is an economist, author and university professor. He uncovered a significant issue: CAPP was allowed to register as a third-party advertiser in the 2019 federal election, letting it run ads and advocate on key issues. Third parties are allowed to spend up to $1 million in the pre-writ period and up to $500,000 during the election campaign. One would think we were in the United States. The Canada Elections Act prohibits a person or entity from making or publishing false statements during an election to affect election results. However, during the 2019 election, CAPP made two false statements on the Vote Energy platform website. In its first statement, it wrote that “Canada's only credible path to meeting its Paris commitments is through increased exports of Canadian natural gas”. It was implying that fossil fuels were actually going to help us. In the second statement, it called for Canada to “acknowledge that Canada's oil and natural gas sector is not subsidized”. As false statements go, I do not think it gets any worse than this second statement. We understand better now why the government cannot resolve the issue of fossil fuel subsidies. Obviously, hundreds of meetings in 12 months with ministers and other elected government officials produce results. How can we expect to make a real transition? We are even at the point where the Canada Elections Act would have to be amended in order to close another loophole. It seems to me that we have enough on our plates already. Let us not add to it, for goodness' sake. We learned recently, after the supplementary estimates (A) were released, that Canada's six largest banks have quietly provided $10 billion in financing for Trans Mountain. Canada's Department of Finance had repeatedly refused to reveal who was behind the huge loan for the controversial oil sands pipeline. Bloomberg, the largest supplier of financial data, has confirmed that all the Canadian banks are listed as lenders. With the guaranteed returns on a loan this big, the banks are getting a good deal. Everyone needs to understand something. Even if Trans Mountain does not pay back the full amount, the federal government's commitment means that the banks involved are in no danger of losing money. We will see why. When was that promise made? The deal with the banks was signed on April 29, the same day that the federal loan guarantee was approved by the Prime Minister's Office, as first reported by the news website Politico. The exact amount loaned by each bank is not disclosed, but if I divide the $10 billion by the number of banks, each bank would have loaned roughly $1.7 billion. Some observers have said that it was a formality. Why say such a thing? A $10‑billion loan coordinated between six banks is a complex agreement that would have taken months to prepare, which once again raises the problem of the lack of transparency. It seems like Export Development Canada's habit of not being transparent is starting to rub off on the Department of Finance. Trans Mountain is a Crown corporation. It is funded in part by taxpayers' money. It should therefore be a paragon of transparency, not opacity. The government wants to build a pipeline, but it does not have any credible arguments for doing so. The Minister of Finance said in February that no additional public money would be spent on that project and that the necessary funding would be secured through third-party financing, either in the public debt markets or with financial institutions. She failed to mention that the government would guarantee these arrangements. Again, Canada's account administered by Export Development Canada is the account fed by the public treasury, meaning our money. It is not like the Bloc Québécois has not talked about that account. We have not stopped talking about it. It takes some nerve to tell people stories like that. It is disgusting. It would be irrational not to be concerned about the current state of governance. If this were some kind of amazing, solid project that was a guaranteed money-maker and guaranteed to be safe for the climate while ensuring a future for our children and our health, I would bet anything that the government and Canadian banks would shout it from the rooftops, but no, this is all being done in secret. This project is an environmental death sentence that violates indigenous rights and compromises the global community's efforts to slow the climate crisis. It is a financial disaster. It is a carbon bomb being built through the mountains. It flies in the face of climate science. Nobody can be proud of this project. It is obvious why they are not exactly advertising it, so it should come as no surprise that the latest developments in this shameful saga are being hushed up. The arrangement shows how non-Canadian institutions feel about the financial prospects of the tar sands. It also speaks to the undue influence of the oil and gas industry, the loopholes in the Canada Elections Act, and finally, the consequences we will collectively face in the future. To attract private lenders such as the big Canadian banks, experts say the federal government is likely to have subordinated its own debt, which means that private sector investors will be paid first if the project is completed and generates revenue. If what the experts say proves to be true, if that really is the case, an investigation will be in order to shed some light on the decision-making process. However, the government is keeping mum. The Bloc Québécois has been systematically calling for an end to the support for Trans Mountain for a very long time. Are the Bloc members the only ones who are fed up with all the lies and double-talk?

1325 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Jun/7/22 7:47:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands. Indeed, we can see that 2050 is too late. In my speeches, I have always said that we need to protect the future for our children and grandchildren. We are beyond that point, however. We are in the thick of it now. The problems have already started. Everything that is in the atmosphere will continue to make temperatures rise. We need to act right now, and we need to do it fast. When I hear people elsewhere in the world who have brilliant ideas about how we can succeed in this mad race against time, I sometimes find myself thinking, “Dear God, if only Canada could get on board, it would have already made progress.” We need to move more quickly, but the political will does not seem to be there. I want to add one more thing. In 1972, at the Club of Rome, a predecessor to the IPCC, one Mr. Fuller said that Earth could be a paradise if all the politicians were sent to the moon. I have a couple of names to suggest for the next shuttle launch.

197 words

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Jun/7/22 7:49:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would say that there was a time when we could set priorities. Now, everything is a priority because the crisis is too serious. I feel that all countries worked together to tackle the health crisis quickly, but they are unable to do the same with this major climate crisis. We are losing living things. What is happening to biodiversity is shocking. The air we breathe is making us sick. The government is giving money to Trans Mountain and, as I explained in my speech, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is such a powerful lobby that it can hide the costs. We have yet to talk about Bay du Nord or the offshore drilling off the coast of Newfoundland. All the decisions being made seem to be completely contrary to what all international and Canadian experts are telling us.

149 words

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Jun/7/22 7:51:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with respect to agriculture, I cannot really speak to anything the people in my riding may have told me because it is not a primarily agricultural riding, even though there is some agriculture. However, at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, we saw that funds were given to help farmers minimize their emissions. That is related to the main estimates. I will stop there.

68 words