SoVote

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/1/23 11:12:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found the speech by my Liberal Party colleague fascinating. He seemed to be suggesting that the Liberal government's record on greenhouse gas emissions is a good one. However, in 2021, greenhouse gas emissions increased by 2%. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions have gone up by 14% in Canada since 1990 despite the climate emergency. Why is his government not doing better? It is incapable of meeting the Paris Agreement targets.

74 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Jun/1/23 11:12:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would point out that, between 2019 and 2021, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada went down. Sure, they went up in 2021, but, as everyone knows, we were emerging from the pandemic, and the economy was recovering. We have to keep doing more, though. Clearly, the government's efforts since being elected in 2015 are starting to pay off. These things do not happen overnight, as the member should know. However, I am very optimistic about the future. For example, sales of zero-emission vehicles are on the rise. Demand is outstripping supply. That is why I am very optimistic about the future.

105 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 11:13:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is high praise, coming from the masters of showmanship, to say that one has put on a good show, but it was a very good speech. We have been talking about the cost of our climate action plan and the rebates, etc. I was just reading a peer-reviewed study, based on science, and it showed that 30% of the total burned forest area in western Canada and the United States between 1986 and 2021 can be traced back to 88 major fossil fuel producers and cement manufacturers. I am wondering if you can comment on the cost of inaction as well as the price of pollution.

110 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/1/23 11:14:08 a.m.
Watch

I want to remind the member that she is to address questions and comments through the Speaker and not directly to the member. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis has the floor.

33 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Jun/1/23 11:14:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, any kind of an analysis around environmental measures, including the price on carbon, must take into account the effects of doing nothing.

24 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Jun/1/23 11:14:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the champion of the environment, the hon. member for Repentigny. I am going to do something I rarely do. I am going to make an aside, because today is my son’s birthday; my loyal equerry is 22 years old. My son is studying political science, and I thought that the best gift I could give him was to use one of his university papers. No one will be surprised to hear that the paper was on populism. Everyone will see me coming right away: I feel like the motion before us here today is more populist rhetoric than actual political debate. I would like to use the reading grid my son presented in his paper. He gives the simplest definition of populism as being the act of developing a simplistic solution to a complex problem. In my opinion, saying that the carbon tax is responsible for today’s inflation is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Once again based on the vast knowledge of my son, Émile Simard, populism can also be defined as the political tendency to create division, to simplify and to exacerbate differences of opinion. Later on I will talk about some of the discourse used by the leader of the official opposition. Members will once again see this tendency to create division, to simplify and to exacerbate differences of opinion. Populism can also be defined as the discourse and behaviours of persons who use rhetoric that combines reality with demagoguery, and that turn the people against ideological adversaries or existing institutions. Lastly, it can be said that all forms of populism berate institutions that do not sufficiently take popular aspirations into account. Populism caricatures political adversaries as elites who are not interested in taking the people’s ideas and popular wisdom into account. Let us start there and analyze the proposal contained in the Conservatives’ motion today. Populism revolves around populist themes. One of these themes we often see relates to purchasing power. This is telling people that, thanks to the political action of one party, they will have more money in their pockets. The notion of purchasing power is the focus of our Conservative colleagues’ motion. Another populist theme is mistrust of science. Climate change was made up by scientists. Another theme is the irrational need to defend the fossil fuel industry, which, as we know, contributes significantly to climate change. The Conservatives have tabled a motion here today that is textbook populism. It uses the inflationary context to advance their goal of antagonizing the members of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois, who recognize that measures must be put in place to fight climate change. They are also trying to advance the agenda of the oil companies. Let us be honest for a moment and say, right from the start, that those who are not populist and remain rational understand that there is no second carbon tax. What the Conservatives are talking about are the clean fuel regulations, which aim to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels. As a result, we can say that the Conservative discourse linking this policy to the current purchasing power crisis is populist; it is doomsday rhetoric aimed at demonizing the energy transition. Let us say right from the start that the carbon tax that the Conservatives are talking about does not affect Quebec, but only Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. It must also be said that, for many years, the Conservatives have demonized the carbon tax. That was already the case under Mr. Harper. The goal is to score political points in the short term, which is another basic characteristic of populism. It must also be said that, at the last Conservative convention, 54% of Conservative Party members rejected the existence of climate change. So more than half of Conservative Party members do not believe that climate change is real. To counterbalance that, I recall that the hon. member for Durham, the former Conservative leader, had said that he wanted to put a price on carbon. I do not know what led to the carbon tax becoming a key issue for the Conservative Party. At the last election, we had a leader who said that we should still have a tax on pollution. In my view, the Conservatives are using the Parliamentary Budget Officer because it suits them today, but we rarely hear them when the Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us about a phenomenon as important as the fiscal imbalance. I rarely hear the Conservatives say that they will use an opposition day to study this scourge of the Canadian federation that is the fiscal imbalance. Of course, if we synthesize all that, we are faced with simplistic solutions to the complex problem of inflation. There is a problem that none of my Conservative colleagues have mentioned. I do not want to address the real problem, because then I would be guilty of populism myself. The problem no one has mentioned is the problem of Canada, which continues to increase the production of dirty oil and tar sands, an unconventional and polluting type of oil. This is the problem we need to tackle today in this federation if we want to fight climate change, which will have a considerable impact on the economy. What my Conservative friends also often forget is that, historically, what has contributed the most to price fluctuations are fluctuations in the price of oil. We have seen that on numerous occasions. The gluttonous oil companies, which are forever increasing their margins, are earning record profits. We saw that during and after the pandemic. We need to ask these gluttonous oil companies, which are earning record profits, to make an extra effort, and not blame the carbon tax. This distorts reality. There are ways to fight inflation. I will mention one in particular: increasing retirees' fixed incomes. We have been calling on the government to increase the OAS and GIS for quite some time now. I would have liked to hear my Conservative colleagues talk about that. This brings me to the favourite topic of the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton and leader of the official opposition. I have heard the opposition leader denounce “wokeness” on numerous occasions. On a trip to Quebec, he said that the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party are woke parties. Here is a quote that made me laugh. While in Montreal, the Conservative leader said: The Liberals and their woke buddies from the Plateau Mont-Royal are waging a war on cars. So, having listened to the common sense of the people from the Quebec City region, allow me to send an equally clear message: A Poilievre government will not fund a third link without lanes reserved for cars. “Good common sense” is a populist term. When someone uses those words, they are usually a populist. Let us not forget the ultimate populist theme: driving. The woke are against driving. What is really funny is that the leader of Conservative Party was rebuked by Quebec's premier, who said that it was not the Liberal federal government that put an end to the third link, it was Quebec. The leader of the Conservative Party was rebuked. I will conclude by saying that I am going to use a little populist discourse myself. Those we consider woke in Quebec are generally those who are against Bill 21, the secularism law, and Bill 96, the French language law. I know that the leader of the Conservative Party is against both these laws. Is the Conservative Party a woke party because it is against Bills 21 and 96? That is what I want to know. Perhaps my son can give me an answer on his next birthday.

1316 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 11:24:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I find interesting in what my colleague across the aisle says is that, in his own province of Quebec, the federal tax on pollution does not apply. Quebec has its own carbon pricing. It is a system that works very well. I congratulate them. However, what we have heard from the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent raises several questions. The only thing that applies to the province of Quebec is the issue of affordability, which is a concern for all Canadians. My question concerns affordability. When measures were proposed here in the House to offer dental care for children, subsidies during the pandemic or grocery rebates, the Conservatives always voted against them. In this context, does my colleague find that there is a contradiction in the way the Conservatives voted?

134 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/1/23 11:25:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that the Conservatives' proposal is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Where I disagree somewhat with my Liberal colleague is that, in my view, the best way to fight inflation is to support those who do not earn very much. I immediately think of retirees. The Liberal Party has never wanted to increase the OAS and GIS. It created two classes of seniors. The best way to fight inflation would be to support seniors. I also do not agree with him on the dental care system, which creates a lot of unfairness in Quebec because we already have a dental care system. We lose big under in this system. I do not completely agree with him, but I am prepared to say that the Conservatives have a simplistic solution to a serious problem.

141 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Jun/1/23 11:26:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my Bloc colleague said that the Conservative Party is the party of populism. Could he define the word “populism”? A large number of Canadians elected the Conservative Party to represent them in the House of Commons. Now, a second carbon tax is about to be forced on Canadians. Another tax on clean electricity regulation is going to be imposed in July, and yet another tax on electricity is coming later. Among the Government of Canada's many proposals, is there a tax on logging? We now know that trees store carbon and release it into the environment. Would my colleague agree with me on that point?

110 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/1/23 11:27:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I entirely follow where my colleague is going with this. I have never heard of a tax that would apply to the forestry sector because a tree sequesters carbon. He asked me to provide a definition of populism. To me, it is quite clear. It refers to politicians who try to oversimplify certain issues, sow division and create antagonism without listening to reason, to common sense, to science. The science shows that climate change is going to cost us a fortune. If we listen to the science, then we should try to prepare for this looming threat and put in place measures such as carbon pricing. It is as simple as that.

118 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Jun/1/23 11:28:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservative motion seems to conflate two different concepts in policy: taxes and regulations. I cannot think of why my hon. colleagues on the Conservative side would want to try to confuse Canadians, and I cannot imagine that they do not know the difference between taxes and regulations, so I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts on why the Conservatives seem intent on confusing these two concepts.

71 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/1/23 11:29:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to be clear, the Bloc Québécois's objective is to stand up for the interests of Quebec in the House. I often get the impression that the objective of the Conservative Party, which is the bloc of the west, is to stand up for the interests of the oil companies in this chamber. The Conservatives often try to distort reality by claiming carbon pricing is one of the causes of inflation, since carbon pricing has repercussions for big oil. That is unbelievably stupid.

89 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Jun/1/23 11:29:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, like my colleague, I will say that the Bloc Québécois will vote against this motion. First, we are not in favour of cancelling the clean fuel regulations. In addition, we do not approve of the Conservative grandstanding on the important issue of inflation and the rising cost of living. We have solutions that would be suitable for Quebec and Canada and that would not prevent them from addressing climate change. It bears repeating that there is no second carbon tax. My colleague and I have said it twice. It is the clean fuel regulations, or CFR, which are intended to reduce the carbon intensity of liquid fossil fuels and which must come into force on July 1, 2023. Four measures were proposed by Canada to achieve a target of 40% reduction in greenhouse gases from 2005 levels. The CFR and carbon pricing, the elimination of coal and the regulation of methane are all important. The CFR is a measure that focuses on the transportation sector, which is very good since it is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in Canada. Unfortunately, emissions are rising. The Conservative outrage stems first and foremost from their total aversion to policies aimed at putting our society on a path of energy progress. They are against that. Indeed, the CFR could have a regressive effect because lower-income households allocate a greater proportion to transportation expenses than high-income households. However, what is not being said in the discussion is that the analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer focuses on the projected cost in 2030 in a scenario in which the CFR is not implemented. What is needed by 2030, and it is needed even sooner, is a change in our behaviour. That is the idea, that is the objective. By consuming less, the environmental impacts will be proportional. We will pay less because we will be consuming less and we will change our habits. There is no other choice. Things cannot continue as they are now. With their motion, in a truly apocalyptic tone, the Conservatives are weaponizing data from the Parliamentary Budget Officer by applying their mantra of everything to oil and gas. As I said earlier, this measure aims to send a signal to the market to promote innovation, and I would even add without delay. We are going through major upheavals at the moment. It is all interrelated, interdependent. The global economy is changing. Historically, the greatest factor in price instability has been the price of oil. The best way to protect against that instability is to move to post-oil as soon as possible. Indeed, as Canadian oil sands production increases, the role of unconventional oil in the Canadian economy increases. However, it is unconventional products that result in economic costs because they are more polluting than conventional oil. The more the share of bitumen increases, the greater the costs of the CFR. Thus, conversely, costs can be saved if the share of bitumen declines. Provinces with economies that are less dependent on fossil fuels are less affected, as is the case in Quebec. The result of this Quebec policy foresees a reduction of 1.78 megatonnes in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. That is the equivalent of 512,000 light vehicles. That is something; it is a step forward. On the other hand, the discourse from the Conservatives represents a step back. It links these regulatory efforts to the current purchasing power crisis. That is doomsday rhetoric, and I would even say rather misguided. Why? Conservative thinking does not take into account the economic benefits of the energy transition, as it is that unavoidable step that allows us to consider a future for our society and future generations. The Conservatives ignore the fact that the costs incurred by environmental policies, such as the CFR, are inextricably linked to our energy choices and policies. To achieve a transformation, to change, tools are needed, incentives are needed, efforts are needed. Human beings are made that way. That is how we are made. As an example, what did we do to curb smoking? Once all the facts were on the table, the research was there, the devastating findings on cancer were there, multiple deterrents were implemented and they worked. It took time. It did not happen in 5 years; it may have taken 10 years. It took time, but there are fewer cancers. I will cite an example from Europe. The bonus-malus solution for large engines in Europe gives hope for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. A cost-benefit study of the bonus-malus provision in France shows that the market share of new low-consumption vehicles increased from 30% in 2007 to 45% in 2008 and 56% in 2009. Let us imagine the result 12 years later. It works but, yes, arm-twisting is sometimes needed to move forward. Levers are needed to speed up the development of new technologies and, at the same time, stimulate demand for clean fuels. I want to briefly mention New Economy Canada, which was on Parliament Hill this week. The representatives of this organizations came to present to us Quebec and Canadian innovations that will structure the new economy of the future, and they are impressive. We ware talking about companies that fully align with the goal of net-zero emissions and that care about the just transition and ties with indigenous communities. Everything is there in every sector a person can think of. The climate policy is costing so much because Canada continues to increase the production of oil from the tar sands, so-called dirty oil because it is unconventional and causes more pollution. Pollution has a cost, as does inaction. Inflation affects purchasing power and money. Let us talk about money. As we speak, there are forest fires raging across the country. The resulting distress and destruction are overwhelming. Climate change does in fact have an impact on people's health and safety, even though the Conservatives sometimes act as though it is no big deal. Have the Conservatives forgotten the sad fate of the 700 people who lost their lives in Lytton in the summer of 2021 or the devastation in the Fort McMurray area? In 2018, the World Health Organization identified climate change as the greatest threat to health in the 21st century. The disasters I just mentioned bring with them trauma, the displacement of families, material losses, and the list goes on. The impacts of the climate crisis, which is largely attributable to our dependence on fossil fuels, are such that the reinsurer Swiss Re estimated the cost of natural disasters in 2021 at $320 billion, up 24% over 2020. What does all this mean for our health? The medical costs associated with air pollution are high. According to a 2017 estimate by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, these costs totalled between $26 billion and $48 billion in 2015. An in-depth analysis done by Health Canada in 2019 found that air pollution causes 14,600 premature deaths every year, at a cost of $114 billion, or 7% of Canada's GDP. That is significant. I am a little confused by the Conservative demagoguery. Their party seems to embody one single objective: to maintain, and even grow, a lethal industry that is shamefully making the rich even richer, to the detriment of any collective progress offered by a genuine energy transition. This budget leans heavily on green this and green that, on the magical—and, as I see it, smoke-blowing—technology known as carbon capture and storage, a Trojan horse if ever there was one. It is anything but efficient. Independent expert analyses confirm without a doubt that capture and storage is inefficient, costly and impossible to implement in time, not to mention a tool invented by oil companies themselves to make money. Conservative Party members are not knights in shining armour come to the aid of workers and citizens. They are shills for the ruling Canadian oil and gas elite, which is laser-focused on producing more, exporting more and sucking up more public money to stay afloat, all while greenwashing to the max. When people are in denial, they lose sight of the truth. This stubborn rejection of change has to stop. The longer we wait, the higher the financial, human, environmental, economic and social costs. Sometimes changing one's mindset requires therapy. Summer is coming, and we will not be here for three months. I think this is a good time to start therapy.

1440 words

All Topics

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Jun/1/23 11:39:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Bloc member. Many organizations see the deforestation happening across the world as the primary cause of the rise in CO₂ in the atmosphere. In 2019, the government said that it was going to plant two billion trees over the next 10 years. It is now 2023, and the government has only planted 60 million trees. This is hardly the way to reach a goal of planting two billion trees in Canada. Is this a success or a win in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions into Canada's atmosphere?

98 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Jun/1/23 11:40:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. He sits with me on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Trees capture CO2 up to about the age of 70. There is some carbon capture going on there, but the problem is that, when it was announced in 2019 that two billion trees would be planted, the Trans Mountain pipeline was under construction. Trans Mountain far exceeds the carbon that two billion trees could ever capture. Of course, we should plant trees. That said, I do not believe anyone is foolish enough to believe that two billion trees will make up for greenhouse gas emissions.

110 words

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 11:41:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and hon. colleague. I also serve on the environment committee with her. She is an excellent member, and I really enjoyed her speech, which I mostly agreed with. I wonder if the hon. member would reflect and comment on the clean fuel regulation. It would give us cleaner air, and it would lower carbon emissions, as she said. Also, it is very good for our farmers. The hon. member knows there is increasing canola production. In Quebec, there is canola crushing. In fact, Quebec takes canola from the Maritimes and crushes it. Could the hon. member reflect on the economic benefits for Canada, for Quebec and for the farmers of this land?

120 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Jun/1/23 11:42:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, with whom I also sit. There are three questions in one. There are economic benefits, because it will force people to change their habits by consuming less petroleum products and focusing on innovation and the transition. We need to stop talking about the transition and start doing something. That is the problem. As I mentioned in my speech, I find that the benefits mostly concern the environment and public health. The pollution caused by the fine particles emitted by the combustion of oil is making us sick. That is how we should be looking at this, rather than through the lens of agriculture. I am far more concerned that it is harmful for our health and that, if we use clean fuel and if we use less fuel, we will improve the health of both the environment and Canadians.

148 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/1/23 11:43:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when it comes to climate, the Conservatives are dinosaurs. I think that they like oil so much because it is the remains of dinosaurs. They must feel at home there. What does my colleague think about the Liberal government, and especially the Minister of the Environment, who make grand speeches at COPs but then sign an order authorizing a project like Bay du Nord?

66 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Jun/1/23 11:43:58 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have talked at length about what the Conservatives brought to the table for their opposition day, but the government is essentially no different. To return to the topic of carbon capture and storage, it is like a magic pill for them too. They think it will solve everything. I think that both the Conservatives and the government in power are behaving more like pawns of the oil and gas oligarchs.

73 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/1/23 11:44:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to announce that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley who, I am sure, will teach us a lot about this very important issue. The planet is burning. It is not a metaphor. Global warming and climate change are real. This is affecting people. It is killing people. It is making people sick and forcing people to leave their villages and towns. The planet is burning and not thousands of kilometres away, but here at home in our own backyard. Forest fires are currently burning in British Columbia, Alberta, Nova Scotia and Quebec. What bright idea did the Conservatives come up with? They are saying that we should not put a price on pollution. They are completely disconnected from reality, from what is actually happening here at home and around the world. The ice shelves in Antarctica are collapsing. This is causing ocean levels to rise. If the permafrost ends up melting, it will release an unbelievable amount of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 70 times stronger than CO2. All these phenomena are piling up. The oceans are acidifying and that will also have an impact on climate change. How is it that the Conservatives are coming back for the eighth time in three years, telling us that we should not put a price on pollution, that it would be good to continue the status quo because everything is going so well and this is good for the economy? However, if there is no planet, if there is no environment, there will be no economy. I do not understand why the Conservatives keep hammering away on this issue, supporting an industry that is harmful not only to biodiversity and nature, but also to human beings, public health and our economy. Even insurance companies are sounding the alarm. Insurance companies are not the biggest tree huggers in the world, but they are beginning to realize that there are areas and places that are no longer insurable. They no longer want to insure people's homes because it is too risky. It is too risky, whether for floods, forest fires or landslides. It has come to that point. The Conservatives keep repeating the same old line that nothing needs to be done or we should wait until others do something. If China does nothing, we do nothing. If the United States does nothing, we do nothing. As human beings and citizens of the world, we have a responsibility to take action to ensure that our environment remains healthy, viable and livable for our children and our grandchildren. As Quebeckers and Canadians, we have a special responsibility because we are big polluters. It is true, we have a small population but we are major greenhouse gas emitters. In 2021, Canada ranked as the 10th GHG-emitting country in the world. By population, it is ranked 39th in the world. Thus, we should be ranked 39th for greenhouse gas emissions, but no, we are ranked 10th. We are in the top 10 emitters because, on average, our per capita greenhouse gas emissions total 17.5 tonnes per year. According to the Paris agreement, to perhaps hold the temperature increase to 1.5° or 2°, per capita greenhouse gas emissions must be limited to two tonnes per year, on average. We are at 17.5 tonnes. This shows the gap between how we live and what result we should attain. It is a huge gap. I would like to take this opportunity to urge caution when discussing the concept of averages in connection with climate change. When we tell people about the need to be careful because a global temperature increase of more than two degrees could be catastrophic, they usually react by thinking that two degrees is not that much, and they wonder what difference it could make. They tell themselves, after all, they often wake up in the morning to a temperature of 15°C, only for it to rise by the afternoon to 25°C. That is a difference of 10°C in a single day. In Quebec, temperatures can drop to 35 below in winter and rise to 35 above in summer, a difference of 70 degrees. All this leaves people wondering what a 1.5°C or 2°C rise in temperature really means. They say it is going to alter the planet's ecosystems and, to understand that, we need to go back a bit. When I say “a bit”, I mean a very long time ago. If we go back 20,000 years, it was, on average, 4°C colder than it is today. As a result, Europe was covered by 3,000 kilometres of ice. The planet was uninhabitable, because it was colder. It is easy to see that if, when it was 4° colder, there were 3,000 kilometres of ice, then when it is 4° warmer, a whole slew of areas on the planet would simply become uninhabitable. Human beings, the human body, cannot survive in those conditions. French engineer Jean-Marc Jancovici is quite clear about that. There are beautiful maps that unfortunately show that an additional 2°C would make certain parts of the world uninhabitable, places such as Central America, northern South America, parts of the Maghreb, South-East Asia, parts of India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, where, if it were over 35° with 100% humidity it would be impossible for human beings to survive. Perspiration would no longer be enough to cool a person's body, so they would die. What happens when people are at risk of dying if they stay in their region, town or village? They move to places where it is not as hot, where it is cooler. Global warming will lead to phenomenal levels of population migration across the globe, which could give rise to geopolitical conflict, extreme tension and probably even war. That is why former U.S. vice-president Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize several years ago for his work on the environment and the prevention of climate change. Why would someone win the Nobel Peace Prize when we are talking about the environment? I just explained why, and it might be worth reflecting on. I submitted a written question to the government recently, specifically to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the department responsible for housing, to find out how the federal government plans to handle the arrival of climate refugees. The answer was that Canada has the national housing strategy, that everything is going to be fine and no one needs to worry about it. We have a Liberal government that is a climate change laggard on the international stage. It is incapable of planning for what is coming. Greenhouse gas emissions in Canada increased by 2% in 2021. Between 1990 and 2021, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada increased by 14% when the goal was to reduce them by 40%. We are way off target. What is more, there has been a dizzying increase in oil and gas production since 2005. The production of oil in the oil sands, which is the most polluting oil in the world, has increased by 215% since 2005 while, internationally, Canada boasts. It attends COP and says that it is a model, that we need to transition, that it is important and we need to pay attention. In the meantime, there is a 215% increase in production in the oil sands. That means that, since 2005, 200,000 wells have been drilled to find oil and gas. The Liberals tell us that things will work out, that we will be able to reach our objectives, yet their actions say the opposite. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change is a former founder of Equiterre, an organization that is currently suing him for shirking his responsibilities. Although he claims he wants to be there to change the world and save the planet, he picked up his pen or pencil and signed a ministerial order green lighting the Baie du Nord project, a decision solely within his purview that will ultimately generate hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. On the one side we have the Conservatives, dinosaurs who refuse to take the matter seriously, and on the other side we have the Liberals, saying one thing and doing the opposite.

1419 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 204